Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/07/2023 - Formal Meeting - Meeting Materials
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL REVISED AGENDA FORMAL MEETING November 7, 2023 Tuesday 7:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Chambers 451 South State Street, Room 315 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Darin Mano, Chair District 5 Victoria Petro, Vice Chair District 1 Alejandro Puy District 2 Chris Wharton District 3 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Dan Dugan District 6 Sarah Young District 7 Generated: 12:23:20 Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Victoria Petro will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of July 11, 2023; July 18, 2023; September 5, 2023; and September 12, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of September 5, 2023; September 12, 2023; and September 19, 2023. 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall declaring November 20th as Transgender Day of Remembrance in Salt Lake City. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items B1-B3 will be heard as one public hearing. 1. Grant Application: Fiscal Year 2023 Safe Streets for All - TravelWell Schools Demonstration The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Office of the Mayor to the U.S. Department of Transportation. If awarded, the grant would fund a multi-media and digital mapping tool augmented with an educational campaign to deliver multi-disciplinary messaging, aligned with the Safe System Approach, targeting underserved populations, citizen behavioral activities, and community engagement and empowerment. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 2. Grant Application: Victims of Crime Act Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application renewal request from the Police Department to the Utah Office for Victims of Crime (UOVC). If awarded, the grant would continue to fund the Victim Advocate positions and the emergency funds for assisting victims. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 3. Grant Application: Know Your Neighbor Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application renewal request from the Office of the Mayor to the State of Utah Department of Workforce Services. If awarded, the grant would continue to fund a full-time Volunteer Coordinator position for the Know Your Neighbor Refugee Volunteer Program. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 4. Ordinance: North Temple Boulevard General Plan Amendment to Not Relocate Madsen Park The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the North Temple Boulevard Plan to remove a recommendation to relocate Madsen Park. The proposed amendment would add language to keep Madsen Park at its current location and would also reimagine and improve the park. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00327 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 5. Ordinance: Rezone at 2157 South Lincoln Street The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property located at 2157 South Lincoln Street from RB (Residential/Business District) to CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). This proposal would facilitate the redevelopment of this, and the adjacent parcels into a multi- family residential project. The property is currently occupied by a Victorian home used as an office building. Under the proposal, the home would be preserved and used as part of the project. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 7. Petitioner: Mark Isaac, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00239 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 6. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 116 East Edith Avenue The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at 116 East Edith Avenue from R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) to CC (Corridor Commercial District). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low-Density Residential to Community Commercial. The proposed amendments would allow for further commercial and multi-family development of the site and would make the property consistent with the adjacent property that shares the same owner. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Ian Kaplan of ADDVirtue, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01160 & PLNPCM2022-01161 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 7. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the properties located at 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Street from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use District). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time, however the applicant may consider a medium-density residential development like the existing development to the north. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Larsen Sequist. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023- 00106 & PLNPCM2023-00380 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 8. Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Approximately 1518 South 300 West The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate City-owned alleys situated adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1528, 1540, and 1546 South 300 West, 325 and 333 West Andrew Avenue, and 352 West Van Buren Avenue. The proposal would allow the property owner to redevelop the surrounding property, which would include the right-of-way within the proposed development. The proposed vacation will not impose access concerns as all of the subject properties that abut the alleys also have frontage on a public street. Located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Jarod Hall, representing the property owner, Petition No.:PLNPCM2023- 00408 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 and Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 9. Ordinance: Historic Preservation Overlay District Text Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The proposal would also amend the consolidated fee schedule. The proposed amendments would make the ordinance easier to use for applicants, property owners, staff, and the Historic Landmark Commission in its administration, as well as create new processes for adopting and updating historic resource surveys. The proposed amendments would involve multiple chapters of the zoning ordinance related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and changes would apply citywide. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00123 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 10. Resolution: Substantial Amendments to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan for Unallocated Housing Program Income Funds The Council will accept public comment and consider approving substantial amendments to the City’s five-year 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and one-year 2023- 2024 Annual Action Plan. The amendments to recognize the funding and eligible uses are necessary for compliance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs. This is a follow-up from prior Council briefings about how to use unallocated housing program income. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 11. PETITION WITHDRAWN – Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendments at Approximately 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street This item has been withdrawn by the petitioner. Due to this item being advertised, we will still hold the public hearing for anyone wanting to make a comment. The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use District). This proposal would also amend the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Designations from Medium-Density Residential to High-Density Residential Mixed Use. The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner to accommodate several multifamily developments. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: TAG SLC, LLC. Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Approximately 2167 South 800 East The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of a City- owned alley situated adjacent to properties at 801 East, 809 East, 815 East, and 825 East Wilmington Avenue. Located within Council District 7. Petitioner: Denise Vance, Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00802 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Approximately 827 East Wilmington Ave The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of a City- owned alley situated adjacent to properties at 825 East, 827 East, and 829 East Wilmington Avenue, and 820 East, 826 East, and 830 East Elm Avenue. If approved, this section of the alley would be divided and given to the property owners abutting the area of the alley vacated. Petitioner: Russell Bollow. Petition No.: PLNPCM2023-00225 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 3. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 1018 East 900 South The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the property located at 1018 East 900 South from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to RMF-30 (Low-Density Multi-Family Residential). The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner greater flexibility in housing types if the property were to be redeveloped. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioners: Tina and Evan Jenkins. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01120 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 4. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1435 South State Street The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 1433 and 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street from CC (Corridor Commercial) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2), amending the zoning of property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue from R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and amend Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City Code to include additional land area eligible for additional building height. The applicant's intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Matthew Ratelle of Colmena Group, representing the property owners. Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01183 & PLNPCM2022-01184 For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/1435SouthStateRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Enacting Temporary Zoning Regulations The Council will consider adopting an ordinance enacting temporary zoning regulations authorizing the Volunteers of America Youth Resource Center at approximately 888 South 400 West to increase the maximum capacity by up to fifty total individuals, as long as the maximum occupancy meets building and fire code safety standards. The temporary zoning regulations will expire on April 15, 2024. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Amended Interlocal Agreement for 2023 Election Services The Council will consider approving a resolution for an amendment to the election services interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. The amendment is necessary to reflect the City Council District Seven special election. It defines the services the County will provide the City for the 2023 General Election, through the Ranked Choice Voting method, on November 21, 2023. The City will be responsible for any additional charges exceeding the estimated cost such as a recount which would be invoiced to the City after the election. For more information visit www.slc.gov/attorney/recorder/elections/. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Subdivision Code Amendments The Council will set the date of Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance repealing and replacing all text, tables, and illustrations in Title 20 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to subdivisions and condominiums. This proposal reorganizes the subdivision regulations, updates application requirements, makes minor changes to subdivision approval processes, updates the standards for approval for dividing land and modifying lots and parcels, updates the subdivision standards to align with City goals identified in the City's general plan, and makes changes necessary to align with State code mandates for review times and review processes. The changes are necessary to bring the City's subdivision regulations into compliance with recent State code changes that require Cities to update their codes by February 1, 2024. For more information visit tinyurl.com/SubdivisionCodeUpdates. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Board Appointment: Public Utilities Advisory Committee – Browne Sebright The Council will consider approving the appointment of Browne Sebright to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee Board for a term ending January 17, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 3. Board Appointment: Public Utilities Advisory Committee – Christopher Shope The Council will consider approving the appointment of Christopher Shope to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee Board for a term ending January 17, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 4. Board Appointment: Public Utilities Advisory Committee – Terry Marasco The Council will consider approving the appointment of Terry Marasco to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee Board for a term ending January 17, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 5. Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Craig Buschmann The Council will consider approving the appointment of Craig Buschmann to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 28, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 6. Board Appointment: Community Development and Capitol Improvement Programs Advisory Board – Devon Schechinger The Council will consider approving the appointment of Devon Schechinger to the Community Development and Capitol Improvement Program Advisory Board for a term ending June 1, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 7. Board Appointment: Community Development and Capitol Improvement Programs Advisory Board – Andrea Schaefer The Council will consider approving the appointment of Andrea Schaefer to the Community Development and Capitol Improvement Program Advisory Board for a term ending June 1, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 8. Board Appointment: City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee – Travis Sheppard The Council will consider approving the appointment of Travis Sheppard to the City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee Board for a term ending July 19, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. H.ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 2:00 p.m. on Monday, November 6, 2023, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, July 11, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Sam Owen – Public Policy Analyst, Hannah Barton – Community Liaison, Amanda Roman – Senior Planner, Kelsey Lindquist – Planning Manager, Debbie Lyons – Sustainability/Environment Director, Jorge Chamorro – Public Services Director, Mark Stephens – City Engineer The meeting was called to order at 3:46 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:45 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. Hannah Barton provided information regarding: Community Engagement Updates • Ways to engage with the City found at: www.slc.gov/feedback/ • Public Utilities – City Creek Water Treatment Pant ◦ Primary construction likely to begin in January 2024 ◦ City Creek Canyon was now open ◾No more construction related closures planned for 2023 ◦ Groundbreaking ceremony anticipated early 2024 • Sustainability – The Other Side Village ◦ Public comment period started on June 23, 2023 ◦ Submit comments through July 23, 2023, by email – cjhowell@utah.gov ◦ Proposed Remedial Action Plan available online for review • Public Lands ◦ Streenblik Park ◾Survey to close in August 2023 ◾232 survey responses to date ◦ Donner Trail Park ◾Survey to close the end of August 2023 ◾278 survey responses to date • Planning ◦ Gas stations near bodies of water – online open houses started ◦ Affordable Housing Incentives – transmitted with ordinance to Community and Neighborhoods ◦ Ballpark Station Area Zoning Map Amendments – public input process currently underway ◦ 2100 South Station Area Plan and Zoning Amendments – public input process currently underway ◦ Adaptive Reuse Ordinance – preparing draft ordinance ◦ Historic Overlay Enforcement – preparing draft ordinance • Mayor’s Community Office Hours updates/locations • July 2023 Event Schedule ◦ Yappy Hour – July 13 at Liberty Park ◦ Festival Latino Americano De Salud – July 14 at Alliance Community Services Office ◦ Summer Film Series at Liberty Park – Erin’s Guide to Kissing Girls – July 14 at Liberty Park ◦ Downtown Farmers Market – July 15 at Pioneer Park ◦ Twilight Concert Series – July 15 at Gallivan Center MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 2 ◦ Salt Lake City Criterium – July 15 at Granary District ◦ Salt Lake City Criterium – July 16 at Sugar House Park ◦ East Bench Ice Cream Social – July 19 at Donner Trail Park (east side) ◦ Main Street (Alleyways Amplified Fashion Show) – July 21 at Eccles Theater Lobby ◦ Summer Film Series at Liberty Park – Blueback – July 21 at Liberty Park ◦ Sugar House Rocks Concert Series – July 21 at Monument Plaza in Sugar House ◦ Sabores de Mi Patria/Flavors of My Homeland Workshop Series – July 21 at Wasatch Community Garden’s Campus ◦ Downtown Farmers Market – July 22 at Pioneer Park ◦ Feria Ambiental: Para celebrar la semana de conservacion Latina (Latin Conservation Week Fair) – July 22 at Three Creeks ◦ The Cookout ‘23 – July 23 at Fairmont Park ◦ Drone Show – July 24 at Liberty Park ◦ Partners in the Park – July 25 at Riverside Park Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update • Homeless Resource Center (HRC) utilization for July 3, 2023 • Rapid Intervention/Encampment Impact Mitigation (EIM) locations/outreach/site rehabilitation • Resource Fair to be held at Pioneer Park on July 14, 2023 (9:30 am to 12:30 pm) • Kayak Court to be held July 21, 2023 on the Jordan River • Sanctioned camping discussions have been held to determine the process and potential location • Ville 1659 was on track for more units to open • Conference of Mayor’s group regarding the winter overflow shelter will be presenting the plan to the Council in the next few weeks Council Member Valdemoros said a table to accept clothing donations would be available at the Resource Fair and encouraged anyone with donations to contact her. 2.Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects ~ 4:00 p.m. 70 min The Council will receive a briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other city-owned physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of at least five years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same calendar year. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 3 Ben Luedtke reviewed the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) including: • Council added a total of $1,258,815 to the FY2024 CIP budget above the Mayor’s Recommended Budget • Funding was from two sources: ◦ $644,126 Funding Our Future limited to the five critical need areas ◦ $614,689 recaptured from capital projects older than three years • Projects of Council Member Interest Not Recommended for Funding by Advisory Board & Mayor came at a total cost of $2,214,126 of which $496,412 could come from Impact Fees • Council could fund these projects by adding funding to CIP, the Mayor’s Recommended Budget and/or shifting funding from projects recommended for funding • Projects are: ◦Project #21 – $830,000 for Rose Park Lane Landscaping, Trail Rebuild, and Safety ◦Project #57 – $210,000 for Ensign Peak Nature Park Access and Security Improvements ◦Project #22 – $530,000 for Richmond Park Playground ◦Project #46 – $494,126 for Westside of Foothill Drive Safety Enhancements ◦Project #32 – $150,000 for Sugar House Safe Side Streets Phase 2 •Project #1 Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning • Projects the Board did not consider •Potential Policy Questions •Public Comment period timelines Council Members and Ben Luedtke discussed: • Project #1 – Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning • Project #2 – Safer Crossings – Main Street, Glendale Park and Citywide ◦ Council Member Petro stated 1200 West needed to be reviewed for safety ◦ The amount of funding available for additional areas to be addressed • Project #3 – 200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements • Project #4 – Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes/Operational Investments ◦ This was an ongoing project and what would be the funding impact to complete project • Project #5 – Complete Streets Program – 2100 South, Virginia Street and City- wide • Project #6 – Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 ◦ How these projects were prioritized ◦ If all of the windstorm damage had been repaired ◦ If this was separate from the 50/50 program ◾Jorge Chamorro reviewed the programs to replace concrete in residential and commercial areas and what the project would address ◾Mark Stephens stated the damage from the wind storm had been repaired and explained how concrete repairs were prioritized MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 4 ◾Council Member Petro wanted a Legislative Intent to assist residents with concrete repairs ◾Jennifer Bruno explained Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding was used for this in the past to help as much as possible and could be a possibility in the future • Project #7 – Livable Streets Implementation ◦ Council wanted a list of all the ways the City was implementing traffic calming and how these projects were prioritized • Project #8 – Neighborhood Byways • Project #9 – Complete Streets – Reconstruction • Project #10 – Popular Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion • Project #11 – Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Cultural Landscape • Project #12 – Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet • Project #13 – Three Creeks West Roadways addendum • Project #14 – Complete Streets Overlay 2023/2024 • Project #15 – Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail • Project # 16 – Rose Park and Jordan Recreation Hub • Project # 17 – City-wide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design • Project # 18 – Madsen Park Improvements • Project # 19 – Fire Station No 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities • Project # 20 – 337 Park Development • Project # 21 – Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements ◦ Waiting on some of the aspects of this program to determine how the upcoming development would impact the area and need for safety improvements ◦ Funding options for this project • Project # 22 – Richmond Park Community Playground (not recommended for funding) – identified to receive funding from the Parks GO Bond • Project # 23 – Rose Park Lane Open Space and Trail Connection Study • Project # 24 – Jefferson Park Improvements • Project # 25 – Parks Bilingual Signage Installation • Project # 26 – Fairpark Traffic Circle Construction Phase • Project # 27 – North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements • Project # 28 – Alleyway Improvements 2023/2024 • Project # 29 – Fire Station No 1 Apparatus Bay Extension • Project # 30 – Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 • Project # 31 – Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program • Project # 32 – Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 ◦ The cost of the study and if it overlapped with City priorities ◦ Concrete planters were installed in some of these area • Project # 33 – Historic Restoration, Replacement, Conservation Work at International Peace Gardens • Project # 34 – Fred and Ila Rose Wetland Preserve Improvements ◦ Location of the project • Project # 35 – 75 Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 5 • Project # 36 – Park Strip, Median, Park Irrigation/Water Reduction Strategy and Implementation • Project #37 – Liberty and Jordan Park Greenhouses ◦ Impacts of not funding the greenhouses in the parks ◦ Greenhouses were not used to grow plants but were used for storage and other options were available • Project # 38 – First Encampment Park ◦ Location of the park • Project # 59 – Westside Art Project • Project # 60 – Maintenance of Vacant City-owned Property ◦ If funding was needed since previous funding was available ◦ The request was for new funding for items that had not been identified ◦ City needing to lead by example in maintaining their properties • Project # 61 – Urban Trails Maintenance 30 min The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of property at approximately 754 South State Street from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District). The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of the property with an urban hospital. The Council will also consider an ordinance that would amend the text of Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code to add Hospitals (including accessory lodging facility), and Ambulance Services (indoor & outdoor) as Conditional Uses in the D-1 Central Business District. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner: Kirton McConkie. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/754StateStreetRezone. Brian Fullmer gave a brief overview of the request. Amanda Roman presented the proposal, highlighting: •Request to rezone the property from D-2 (Downtown Support District) to D-1 (Central Business District) • Text amendment to section 21A.33.050 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts would add the following uses as conditional within the D-1 zoning district: ◦ Ambulance service indoor and outdoor ◦ Hospital, including accessory lodging facility • Planning Commission having forwarded a positive recommendation to the Council • General plan policies for the Downtown Plan and Plan Salt Lake • Development potential for the property • How the proposal would fit/affect the surrounding neighborhood Council Members, Brian Fullmer, and Amanda Roman discussed the street activation along State Street and Main Street. Tyler Buswell, Bentley Pay and Heather Wall with Intermountain Healthcare MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 6 3.Ordinances: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 754 ~ 5:10 p.m. South State Street presented the proposal for the site. Council Members, Amanda Roman, Tyler Buswell, Bentley Pay, and Heather Wall discussed: • Options for first level of the building to activate the surrounding streets • Potential development agreement for the project • Excitement for the hospital to be downtown and ways to make the facility a more robust community • Timeline for the proposal • Services that would be provided at the hospital • The need to provide reproductive and mental health services • Providing facilities that don’t just respond to public healthcare but support the workers with daycare and mental health support • Ensuring equality for all races and genders being provided in the services at the facility 4.Informational: Historic Carriage House Text Amendment ~ 5:40 p.m 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend section 21A.34.020 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The draft ordinance outlines a required application process, criteria, and applicable standards associated for a carriage house reconstruction. Petitioner: Stephen Pace. The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation, therefore an ordinance has not been drafted. If the Council decides to approve the zone amendment, an ordinance would be drafted and considered for approval. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 7 Nick Tarbet gave a brief overview of the proposal. Kelsey Lindquist reviewed the proposal, including: • Proposal to amend the zoning ordinance to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purpose of creating a dwelling unit • Identified issues with language • Text amendment background • Staff’s language proposal Council Members and Kelsey Lindquist discussed why carriage houses were not allowed to become Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), as it was not that the structure was prohibited to be an ADU but the fact that it was in a historic district. Stephen Pace (Applicant) and Kurt Huffaker (Applicant) reviewed the significance of the property, the desire to reconstruct the carriage house bringing it back to life, how the proposal met the ordinance and would fit with the nature of the area. Council Members, Stephen Pace, Kurt Huffaker and Kelsey Lindquist discussed: • How the proposed ordinance language would accommodate the proposal • Timeline for the proposal 5.Resolution: Community Renewable Energy Program Utility Agreement ~ 6:00 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution on the City’s ongoing participation in developing a community renewable energy program. Sam Owen gave a brief overview of the resolution including its purpose. Debbie Lyons discussed the history of the resolution, next steps, and the importance of putting it in place. Council Member Dugan explained the purpose of the proposal and that this was a small piece of the overall agreement. Council Member Mano asked Council Member Dugan to keep the Council updated on the proposal. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 8 The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution that would authorize the Mayor to enter into the proposed addendum No. 7 to the Interlocal Agreement with UTA to implement 2023-24 Frequent Transit Network (FTN) service. Addendum No. 7 is the service agreement for the routes on 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South and 1000 North/South Temple. The interlocal agreement is for twenty-years with a goal of full implementation of the FTN as described in the City’s Transit Master Plan. Note that the Plan identifies an FTN route on 600 North which UTA is implementing outside of the City agreement based on ridership levels and significance to the regional network. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 9 6.Resolution: Addendum No. 7 to Interlocal Agreement with the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) for Transit Master Plan Frequent Bus Service Routes Implementation Written Briefing - Written briefing only. No discussion was held. 7.Board Appointment: Racial Equity and Policing Commission:- - Michael Ryan Hogan The Council will interview Michael “Ryan” Hogan prior to considering appointment to the Racial Equity and Policing Commission for a term ending December 20, 2025. 8.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board: Kerri Nakamura ~ 6:15 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Kerri Nakamura prior to considering appointment to the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board for a term ending July 11, 2026. Interview held. Council Member Mano said Kerri Nakamura’s name would be on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 9.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. No report 10.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. Jennifer Bruno reviewed the schedule for July 13, 2023 with the Downtown event and Work Session. 11.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10 approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Item not held Meeting adjourned at 6:30 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, July 11, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 11, 2023 11 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, July 18, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Mark Kittrell – Deputy City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Blake Thomas – Community & Neighborhoods Director, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Kristin Riker – Public Lands Department Director, Nick Norris – Planning Director, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Kelsey Lindquist – Senior Planner, Ashley Cleveland – Mayor's Senior Advisor, Jorge Chamorro – Public Services Director, Daniel Echeverria – Senior Planner, Tammy Hunsaker – Deputy Director of Community Services, Mayara Lima – Planning Manager, Madison Blodgett – Associate Planner, Jonathan Larsen – Transportation Director, Lindsey Nikola – Deputy Chief of Staff The meeting was called to order at: 2:03 pm. Council Member Mano Chaired the meeting. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Ashley Cleveland provided information regarding: Community Engagement Highlights •Ways to engage with the City at www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Planning Department projects/events •Arts Council’s West Side Art Project information •Public Lands projects/events •Mayor’s Office ◦July Community Office hours and locations ◦Fleet Block – Art Healing Comment Form •July 2023 City events Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update •Resource Center utilization data •Rapid Intervention Team/Encampment Impact Mitigation locations/information •Resource Fair was held Friday July 14, 2023 at Pioneer Park •Kayak Court to be held on July 21, 2023 on the Jordan River •Summer cooling station information 2.Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects Follow- up ~ 2:15 p.m. 75 min The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other City-owned physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 2 life of at least five years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same calendar year. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24CIP. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, June 6, 2023; Tuesday, July 11, 2023; and Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 and Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Ben Luedtke provided information regarding the following items on the Funding Log (not recommended for funding) and Council Members reviewed/discussed each item. • Item #39: $162,500 – Indiana Avenue Area – Transit & Trail Connections • Item #40: $200K – Multimodal Capital Maintenance ◦ Council Member Puy requested additional information regarding how far the funding would go and a list of projects and locations of the proposed work ◦ Council Member Mano requested a current assessment of the assets/severity of deferred maintenance before moving forward with funding ◦Jorge Chamorro explained the intention of the requested funding and noted this item was submitted in coordination with the Transportation Department • Item #41: $4M – 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding • Item #42: $336,500 – 800 South 1000 East Crosswalk Upgrade • Item #43: $85K – Central 900 South Streetscape Improvements • Item #44: $93K – Sugar House Community Map Project • Item #45: $2M – Phase I: Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades • Item #46: $494K – Implementation of Safety Enhancements West Side Foothill Drive ◦ Council Member Dugan explained the importance/reasoning for the request ◦Jon Larsen indicated this project was listed as number 74/77 out of 113 on the ranked list of prioritized zones and speed/crash data and equity were factored into the zones • Item #47: $100K – Reimagining 400 West and 400 North • Item #48: $533K – 11 Avenue Park Pavilion, Trees, and Benches • Item #49: $262K – New Liberty Park Crosswalks and Trails • Item #50: $450K – Sunnyside and Arapeen Signal & Safety Improvements • Item #51: $500K – Wasatch Hollow Park: Engagement, Planning & Restoration ◦Kristin Riker explained additional funding would be requested from the County for repairs to irrigations systems damaged by vehicles and indicated this item was for dog park options th MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 3 • Item #52: $470,700 – Hansen Avenue West Entrance/Exit • Item #53: $479K – Nevada Street Reconstruction • Item #54: $500K – Sunnyside Pickleball Courts • Item #55: $351K – 1200 East Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk • Item #56: $500K – Salt Lake City Petanque Court(s) • Item #57: $210K – Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements ◦ Council Member Wharton explained the importance/reasoning for the request and the possibility of additional fundraising to complete the requested work • Item #58: $502,500 – 11 Avenue Park Pickleball Expansion • Item #32: $150K – Sugar House Safe Side Streets (Part 2) ◦ Council Member Young explained this item was a high priority for her related to the needs of the neighborhood • General Fund and Funding Our Future balances • Council Member requested items (not recommended for funding): ◦ Item #21: $30K – Rose Park Lane Landscaping – funding the traffic calming element/driver feedback signs (requested by Council Member Petro) ◦ Item #22: $530K – Richmond Park Community Playground (requested by Council Member Valdemoros) ◾Kristen Riker explained this would be in addition to any amenities the neighborhood wanted for the GO Bond in Richmond Park ◦ Item #27: $495K – North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements (requested by Council Member Puy) ◦ Item #7: $2.5M – Additional Funding for Livable Streets (requested by Council Member Mano) ◦ Item #46: $494,126 – Westside of Foothill Drive Safety Enhancements (requested by Council Member Dugan) ◦ Item #57: $210K – Ensign Peak Nature Access and Security Improvements (requested by Council Member Wharton) ◦ Item #32: $150K – Sugar House Safe Side Streets Phase 2 (requested by Council Member Young) 3. Ordinance: Form Based Urban Neighborhood Text Amendment 3:3opm The Council will receive an update on an ordinance that would create the Form-Based Urban Neighborhood 3 Subdistrict (FB- UN3). As well as an ordinance that would amend the zoning map to apply the FB-UN3 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 3 District) to the fleet block property between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Street. Form-Based code focuses on the form and appearance of buildings. It also has more regulations that control those aspects of development than traditional zones. The proposal would apply regulations to future developments such as building design, height, bulk, use, and other development standards and land uses. The regulations are intended to support the block’s redevelopment. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277 th MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 4 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - TBD Hold hearing to accept public comment - TBD TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Nick Tarbet provided a brief introduction. Daniel Echeverria and Nick Norris provided information regarding: FB-UN3 Ordinance Update • Ordinance split into two parts: ◦ Text Amendment – creates the FB-UN3 zone itself ◦ Map Amendment – maps the FB-UN3 zone over the Fleet Block • Ordinance updated to reflect recently adopted codes and eliminate code conflicts ◦ Downtown zoning updates, tech land uses, etc. • Active ground floor uses for buildings over 100’ in length • Building length limit vs. property/lot size limit • Open Space definition and details Straw Poll: Support to require 10% open space on ground floor/level. Council Members Valdemoros and Dugan were in favor. Council Members Young, Mano, Puy, Petro, Wharton were not in favor of the poll. Council Member Puy offered his support for the proposed changes. 4.Informational: Fleet Block Zoning and Disposition Strategy Update ~ 3:40 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive an update on the status and disposition strategy related to the Fleet Block, an 8.75-acres of City-owned property located between 300 and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South. Until 2010, this property was utilized by the City to manage its vehicle fleet. After the Fleet function was moved to a facility farther to the west, the City has conducted due diligence and various studies to prepare the property for redevelopment. The goal of these efforts is to turn this City-owned property into a community asset that will contribute to the economic, social, and environmental betterment of the City. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFleetBlock. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 5 Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Blake Thomas and Tammy Hunsaker provided information regarding: Fleet Block Development Update •Property overview •Current status ◦The Administration asks that the Council: ◾Approve the rezone ◾Indicate support for size and location of the public space ◾Provide any additional policy direction on the development plan •Proposed site plan •Proposed public space •Budget considerations •Leveraging public benefits (land sale vs.ground lease – hypothetical example) •Development and procurement considerations •Request for proposal/qualifications (RFP/Q) equity and inclusion Council Members, Tammy Hunsaker, and Blake Thomas discussed: •Retaining ownership and leasing vs. selling the property •Private vs. public roadways within the development •Seeking a heavily vegetated plaza over a park to accommodate different uses Straw Poll: Preliminary support for proposed site plan shown today. All Council Members present were in favor. 5.Tentative Break ~ 4:10 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 6 6.Ordinance: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment ~ 4:30 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for 1782 South 1600 East. The amendments are sought for the purpose of eventually legalizing the property in order to construct a single-family dwelling. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Residential). The applicant is also seeking to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. No development plans have been submitted at this time. The properties are within Council District 7. Petitioner: Blaine Properties LLC, FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Brian Fullmer provided a brief introduction. Kelsey Lindquist provided information regarding: •Subject property location (considered to be a part of 1572 East Blaine Avenue) •Proposed zoning amendment (from R-1/7000 to SR-3) •Zoning district comparison •Proposed plan amendment (Sugar House Future Land Use Map/from low to medium density residential) •Amendments are being sought to legalize an illegal subdivision for the purposes of development •Negative recommendation from both Planning Commission and Planning Staff •Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) possibilities for the property Council Member Wharton cautioned about process and precedence and provided reasoning for denying the request. Anthony Rossi (Applicant) provided information regarding: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 7 •Classification of the property •Original subdivision information contrasted with current site condition •Benefits of rezoning the property to SR-3 •How the proposed plan related to Growing SLC and Plan Salt Lake housing plans •Proposed site plan •Estimated building area on subject property 7.Ordinance: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment ~ 4:50 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District. The proposal would prohibit new drive-through facilities in the district by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through facilities under CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030). The amendment would also clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Brian Fullmer provided an introduction. Mayara Lima and Nick Norris provided information regarding: •Details of the request – initiated by Planning Commission to prohibit new drive- through uses in Sugar House Business District •Proposed amendments •Existing drive-through facilities – considered a non-conforming use •Public engagement feedback – benefits vs. alternative considerations •Professional best practices – drive-through uses not appropriate for walkable districts and benefits of walkable districts •Businesses with no drive-through access •How the proposed amendment related to plan polices and initiatives MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 8 8.Ordinance: Sight Distance Triangle Text Amendment ~ 5:20 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the sight distance triangle. The proposal would amend the zoning ordinance regulations regarding the sight distance triangle, which is the area providing visual clearance at streets, alleys, and driveways intersections where views of approaching traffic should not be obstructed. Currently the code does not include intersections of alleys and streets, and alleys and sidewalks. The proposed amendment will add these intersections with alleys and add standards to apply the sight distance triangle regulations to buildings and all other structures not included in fence regulations. Petitioner: Mayor Erin Mendenhall. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Brian Fullmer provided a brief introduction. Madison Blodgett and Nick Norris provided information regarding: •Details of the project request •Definition and benefits of site distance triangle •Proposed changes – adding alleys and height restrictions, clarifying language •Illustration of site distance triangle •Impact to existing structures – continued use of legally existing structures (fences/walls/hedges, buildings, other structures) 9.Board Appointment: Cultural Core Finance Committee – Spencer Lawson ~ 5:40 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Spencer Lawson prior to considering appointment to the Cultural Core Finance Committee for a term ending July 18, 2025. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 9 Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Interview held. Council Member Mano said Spencer Lawson’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 10.Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Anne Olsen ~ 5:45 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Anne Olsen prior to considering appointment to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 27, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Interview held. Council Member Mano said Anne Olsen’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 11.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board – Emina Alibegovic ~ 5:50 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Emina Alibegovic prior to considering appointment to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 7, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 10 Interview held. Council Member Mano said Emina Alibegovic’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 12.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board – Justin Neville ~ 5:55 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Justin Neville prior to considering appointment to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 7, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Interview held. Council Member Mano said Justin Neville’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Standing Items 13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Item not held. 14.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. Cindy Gust-Jenson provided information regarding: •Seeking support for funding lighting for a baseball field in Riverside Park (in which one of the ball fields would be supported through a contribution from the Larry H. Miller Family Foundation) – There was no opposition by Council Members •Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) representatives arriving this week – and if the Council could host a breakfast – There was no opposition by Council Members MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 11 •Provided options for Council group photo dates – September 5, 2023 was chosen by Council Members •Sister City Program – Events beginning Saturday and confirming which Council Members will attend each event – Council Members listed the events they would be attending 15.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Item not held. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 12 Meeting adjourned at: 6:00 pm. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder – Cindy Trishman Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, July 18, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, July 18, 2023 13 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, September 5, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Nick Tarbet – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Peter Makowski – Economic Development Manager, Aaron Barlow – Principal Planner, Mark Stephens – City Engineer, Roberta Reichgelt – Business Development Director, Kristina Gilmore – Senior Planner, Weston Clark – Mayor's Senior Advisor The meeting was called to order at: 3:06 pm. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Weston Clark provided information regarding: Community Engagement Updates •Ways to engage with the City www.slc.gov/feedback/ •Arts Council 2023 Public Arts survey •Transportation events/projects •Redevelopment Agency – Ballpark NEXT (District 5) – community visioning phase has begun •Public Utilities events/projects •Sustainability – The Other Side Village (environmental) (District 2) – Remedial Action Plan was accepted by Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) •Planning Department events/projects •Mayor’s Office Community Office Hours locations/dates/times •2023 September events in the City Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update •Homeless Resource Center utilization data •Rapid Intervention/Encampment Mitigation Impact locations and engagement information •Resource Fair to be held September 8, 2023 at Pioneer Park •Kayak Court to be held September 22, 2023 •Non-congregate Shelter Project was in initial phase – State working on the following: ◦City-State funding agreement and scope of work ◦Temporary location – 5 months ◦Up to 50 residents ◦Solid structures (State-owned) ◦On-site bathrooms ◦Perimeter fencing ◦Neighborhood safety and security plan MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 2 ◦Operator scope of work Council Member Valdemoros noted that the Council Office would be accepting clothing donations to distribute during the next Resource Fair on September 8, 2023. 2.Ordinance: Northpoint Small Area Plan Follow-up ~ 3:15 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the Northpoint Small Area Plan. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is a land use plan for the land that is located between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the northern boundary of the city along the 2200 West corridor. The updated plan will provide guidance on existing and anticipated development in the area, as well as annexation- related issues. As part of the plan update, the Salt Lake City Major Streets Plan will be amended to reflect recommended roadway alignments. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/NorthpointSmallAreaPlan FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 and Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Nick Tarbet provided a brief introduction to the ordinance/request. Krissy Gilmore provided information regarding: Northpoint Small Area Plan •Study area details •Current zoning and existing future land use information •Goals for the plan •Proposed vision map (future land use map) •Proposed design standards •Implementation details including three critical implementation path items identified: ◦Evaluate funding solutions to redesign 2200 West and construct 2900 West ◦Evaluate feasibility of acquiring City-owned Open Space ◦Development code updates (either a Northpoint specific development code or amendments to the M-1 zone) •Amending the Major Streets Plan as part of the plan amendment •Land preservation and financial tools for consideration •Revisions to the draft plan based on Council direction Council Member Petro asked for fellow Council Members to join her in deferring action until an appropriate zoning designation for the area could be applied and asked the Planning Department to apply a universal AG (agricultural) zoning in the interim until MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 3 the appropriate zoning could be determined. She noted that all neighbors of the area were eager to move forward with the Northpoint Small Area Plan and were in agreement that this route would reduce the already intense light, air, and sound pollution occurring due to heavy construction currently in the area and would spare the area of further heavy commercial development. Council Member Petro also asked for a way to force the immediate development of 2900 West to stop/reduce the damage being done to homes along the undeveloped rural road of 2200 West. Council Member Dugan noted his appreciation for the plan but said it was in the wrong location, citing concerns with declining water quality, air quality, wetland issues, noise and light pollution in the area. Council Members discussed the details of Council Member Petro’s request. 3.Informational: Presentation on Homelessness ~ 4:00 p.m. 60 min. The Council will receive a briefing by Wayne Niederhauser, State of Utah Office of Homeless Services Coordinator, about recent updates pertaining to homelessness, including the upcoming winter overflow plans. For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/HomelessnessSLC FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Wayne Niederhauser (State of Utah Homeless Services Coordinator) provided information regarding: •Local Homeless Council (LHCs) details (comprised of 13 councils) •Contributors to homelessness and the various paths back to housing •Transitional vs. persistent homelessness ◦8,700 persons in Utah having experienced homelessness for the first time in 2022 ◦28,400 persons touched homeless services in Utah in 2022 ◦Point in Time Count capturing only 3,700 persons in 2022 •State Plan on Homelessness – information available on the State’s website, including: ◦Statewide homelessness data ◦Proposed plan ◦Implementation ideas •Diversion, services, and housing being important components to deter homelessness MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4 •Non-congregate Shelter project details Council Members and Wayne Niederhauser discussed: •Benefits of having the City, County and State aligned in the effort of homelessness •How to know if current services/programs were producing good results – if so, what were the ideal metrics •If there were incentives for other cities outside of Salt Lake County to provide permanent supportive housing •The issue of zoning restrictions being a hindrance to density in the City •Workforce development for proposed sanctioned campgrounds, non-congregate shelters, etc. •Data collection/usage to better match persons to needed services 4.Tentative Break ~ 5:00 p.m. 15 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 5.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Carlos Santos- Rivera ~ 5:15 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Carlos Santos-Rivera prior to considering appointment to the Planning Commission for a term ending December 31, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Carlos Santos-Rivera’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at ~ 5:20 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 5 6.Approximately 1435 State Street 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of property located at 1433 and 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street from CC (Corridor Commercial) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2), amending the zoning of property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue from R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and amend Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City code to include additional land area eligible for additional building height. The applicant's intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal, to be submitted at a later date. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Matthew Ratelle of Colmena Group, representing the property owners. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Brian Fullmer provided a brief introduction to the proposal. Aaron Barlow provided information regarding: •Details of the request •Site context including the properties involved in the request •What would change with the FB-UN2 zoning •FB-UN2 development standards •Master Plan compliance details •Staff recommendation Simon Rucinski (Project Manager – DOT-ARC) provided information regarding: •Introduction of the development/architectural team •Overview map •Transit and neighborhood map •Vicinity and current zoning •Current property conditions •Details of the proposal •Proposed site plan including ground floor plan 7.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Follow-up ~ 5:35 p.m. 20 min. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 6 The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No.1 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes additional funding for downtown open streets events this coming fall, local matching funds for Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grants to rebuild bridges over the Jordan River, and funding expanded elements of the 2100 South reconstruction project through the Sugar House Business District, among other items. The proposed amendment also includes an ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to address lane closures and sidewalk closures separately. For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 and Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Ben Luedtke provided an introduction and information regarding: •Draft of Open Streets event details (locations/days/times and type of event) ◦Peter Makowski and Roberta Reichgelt provided additional details regarding the Open Streets events ◾Council Members requested more information on cost breakdown for each current event/applicant and a schedule of activations of previous years’ Open Streets for a cost comparison •Item A-3 – $2.4 Million Refund for Ivory University House •Item D-2 – Corrections to Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) (Budget Neutral) •Item D-3 – Three Creeks West Roadway Re-scope (Budget Neutral – $1,359,130 in Capital Improvement Project [CIP] Fund) •Item D-4 – Reallocate Bond Funds from 1700 East to 2100 South Reconstruction ($1.5 M reallocation in CIP Fund) •Item D-5 – Re-scope Bridge Rehabilitation Funding as Local match to Federal Funding for Rebuilding Three Bridges over the Jordan River ($6,348,507 in the CIP Fund) ◦Mark Stephens provided additional details regarding costs and what work was needed, etc. 8.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Turner Bitton ~ 5:55 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Turner Bitton prior to considering appointment to the Planning Commission for a term ending December 31, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 7 Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Turner Bitton’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 9.Board Appointment: Library Board – Sariah Toronto ~ 6:00 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Sariah Toronto prior to considering appointment to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Sariah Toronto’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 10.Board Appointment: Library Board – Darell Schmick ~ 6:05 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Darell Schmick prior to considering appointment to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Darell Schmick’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 8 Standing Items 11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Item not held. 12.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to; •Artwork Deaccession; •City's Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee; and •Scheduling Items. Jennifer Bruno provided information regarding: •Notification of removal of artwork from the City’s public art collection was contained in a transmittal from the Administration and was provided to Council Members on August 8, 2023 •Council feedback was needed regarding November and December Council Meetings ◦Council Members agreed to move the Council Meeting scheduled for November 21, 2023 to November 7, 2023 ◦Council Members agreed to meet December 6, 2023 at 4:00 pm for the Board of Canvassers meeting •Seeking interest from Council Members for serving on a subcommittee for the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) to review resumes for recommendations to the committee for a vacancy ◦Council Members Dugan and Young volunteered 13.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 9 transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Item not held. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 10 Meeting adjourned at: 6:43 pm. Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair – Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, September 5, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 11 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Work Session on Tuesday, September 12, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Andrew Johnston – Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, Brian Fullmer – Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Tim Cosgrove – Community Liaison, Laura Briefer – Public Utilities Director, Angela Price – Policy Director, Community and Neighborhood, John Anderson – Planning Manager, Diana Martinez – Senior Planner The meeting was called to order at 5:07 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1 Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 4:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. Tim Cosgrove provided information regarding: Community Engagement Updates • Ways to engage with the City www.slc.gov/feedback/ • 9/11 Day of Service – future volunteer opportunities https://www.slc.gov/mayor/slc-corps/ • Mayor’s Office Community Office Hours locations/dates/times • 2023 September events in the City Andrew Johnston provided information regarding: Homelessness Update • Resource Center utilization data • Rapid Intervention/Encampment Impact Mitigation locations • Resource Fair to be held Friday September 8, 2023, at Pioneer Park • Kayak Court to be held September 22, 2023, on the Jordan River with one more in October Laura Briefer presented the Drought and Water Supply Update: • Drought and climate status • Salt Lake City water supply statistics • Salt Lake City water demand • Water conservation tips for Fall 2.Ordinance: The Anti-Gentrification and Displacement Plan, Thriving in Place ~ 4:15 p.m. 90 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would adopt the Thriving in Place plan as part of the City’s general plan. Thriving in Place is the City's proposed anti- displacement and mitigation plan, developed with public engagement and feedback from experts and community organizations. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2 Allison Rowland gave an overview of the plan and schedule for approval. Angela Price presented the plan, highlighting: • Purpose • How the plan was developed • Analysis • Documenting the severity of the challenge • Key takeaways • Challenges • Action Framework • Replacing the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance • Next steps for implementation • Action priorities • Three City action teams • Two partnership platforms • Two-year Action Plan • Community feedback • Planning Commission feedback Council Members, Allison Rowland, and Angela Price discussed: • How the Council could better serve the residents of Salt Lake City at the State level • Working with other cities to promote affordable housing • The importance of keeping people housed and the cost of doing so • Challenges that renters faced in obtaining units and the cost of application fees • Prioritizing the goals and the approval process • Implementation Team operations • How adopting the plan could potentially add costs to the General Fund balance • Other entities that could assist with funding portions of the programs • Timing for implementing/funding the programs • The logic of the State’s “Three Day Pay or Quit” policy, how other Cities were assisting tenants to avoid eviction and the impact the policy had on renters • If the Good Landlord program could help address the Three Day Pay or Quit policy • The replacement of the Housing Loss Mitigation Plan by the Community Benefit Policy • Using the Council Members’ expertise to help move the plan forward • Council will making it a priority to address these programs as they were brought for review • Suggestion to add a tax to short term rentals, who could add that tax and how could those funds be used for affordable housing Council Member Petro took over as Chair at 6:04 pm when Council Members Mano and Puy left the meeting. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3 10 min. The Council will interview Lisa Kehoe prior to considering appointment as the 911 Dispatch Executive Director. Interview was held. Council Member Petro said Lisa Kehoe’s name was on the was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 4.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board - Elizabeth Hanna ~ 5:55 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Elizabeth Hanna prior to considering appointment to the Police Civilian Review Board for a term ending September 7, 2026. Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Elizabeth Hanna’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 5.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board - Isaac Astill ~ 6:00 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Isaac Astill prior to considering appointment to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 28, 2026. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 4 3.Advice and Consent: 911 Dispatch Executive Director – Lisa Kehoe ~ 5:45 p.m. Interview was held. Council Member Mano said Isaac Astill’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration. 6.Dinner Break ~ 6:05 p.m. 30 min. 7.Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Approximately 2167 South 800 East ~ 6:35 p.m. 20 min The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would vacate a portion of a City- owned alley situated adjacent to properties at 801 East, 809 East, 815 East, and 825 East Wilmington Avenue. Located within Council District 7. Petitioner: Denise Vance. Brian Fullmer reviewed the petition, highlighting: • The location and size of the property located in Council District Seven • The remaining section of alley was part of a separate alley vacation petition currently under review • The alley segment had been used as a driveway for the home at 2167 South 800 East for more than twenty years • A gate at the rear of that property blocks the alley making it impassable Diana Martinez reviewed the petition, highlighting: • Details of the request • Recommendation for approval • Existing utility agreement would remain Council Members, Brian Fullmer, and Diana Martinez discussed: • Who would own the property being vacated • The community response to the petition 8.Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Approximately 827 East Wilmington Ave ~ 6:55 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would vacate a portion of a City- owned alley situated adjacent to properties at 825 East, 827 East, and 829 East Wilmington Avenue, and 820 East, 826 East, and 830 East Elm Avenue. If approved, this section of the alley would be divided and given to the property owners abutting the area of the alley vacated. Petitioner: Russell Bollow. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 5 Brian Fullmer reviewed the petition, highlighting: • The location and size of the property located in Council District Seven • The remaining section of alley was part of a separate alley vacation petition currently under review • The alley segment was blocked by a fence behind the petitioner’s property at 827 East Wilmington Avenue which was removed • Fences and structures at other abutting properties partially block the alley • This along with grade changes in the alley make it impassable by vehicles • Some properties closer to 900 East use the alley segment for garage access • Vehicle access to those properties would not be impacted by the current alley vacation request Diana Martinez reviewed the petition, highlighting: • Details of the request • Recommendation for approval • Existing utility agreement would remain Council Members, Brian Fullmer, John Anderson. and Diana Martinez discussed: • Current fence lines protruding into the alley way and what would happen if the petition was not approved • Access to the properties if the alley were completely vacated • The property owners on both sides being in favor of the alley vacation Rusty Balow (applicant) stated the alley ran east to west and the TRAX line was a block away therefore, access to the alley was not really necessary for people to move around the area. 9.Informational: Capital Asset Plan Early Check-In for Policy Guidance ~ 7:15 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the process, goals, and prioritization criteria to create a Capital Asset Plan. It would prioritize projects over a five-year period to implement the City's visions from Council-adopted master plans. Prioritized projects would go through the annual open and competitive Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to receive funding. A Capital Asset Plan would help bridge the gap between 20-year master plan aspirations and the annual CIP process, such as identifying efficiencies of combining projects across departments and plans, tracking metrics for high-level policy goals, and aligning funding sources with eligible uses. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 6 Item not held Standing Items 10.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. No report 11.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. No report 12.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7 f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Closed Session started at 7:15 pm Held via Zoom and in the Work Session Room (location) Council Members in Attendance: Council Members Dugan, Petro, Valdemoros, Wharton, and Young. Council Members Puy and Mano joined at 7:44 pm City Staff in Attendance: Rachel Otto, Lindsey Nikola, Chief Mike Brown, Katie Lewis, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Whitney Gonzalez-Fernandez, and Cindy Lou Trishman. Closed Session ended at 7:55 pm Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to enter into Closed Session for the purposes of attorney-client matters and advice of Counsel. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Sarah Young ABSENT: Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to exit Closed Session. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8 Meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday, September 12, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, September 5, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Present Legislative Leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Allison Rowland – Public Policy Analyst, Ben Luedtke – Senior Public Policy Analyst, Nick Tarbet – Public Policy Analyst The meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Dan Dugan will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of June 13, 2023; August 8, 2023; and August 15, 2023, as well as the formal meeting minutes of June 6, 2023 and August 15, 2023. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to approve the work session minutes of June 13, 2023; August 8, 2023 and August 15, 2023 as well as the formal meeting minutes of June 6, 2023 and August 15, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall recognizing September as National Suicide Prevention and Action Month. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton, seconded by Councilmember Puy to adopt Joint Ceremonial Resolution 25 of 2023, recognizing September as National Suicide Prevention and Action Month. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Council Member Mano read the resolution. Elisa Burnham (Suicide Prevention Program Coordinator-Salt Lake County) spoke to educating the public about preventing suicide and the resources available. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 2 Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 3 Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Petro to close the public hearing and refer Item B-1 to a future Consent Agenda for action. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Sylvia Richards gave a brief overview of the proposal. No public comment B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.Grant Application: Summer Food Service Program 2023 for YouthCity The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Youth and Family Services to the Utah State Board of Education administering U.S. Department of Agriculture funding. If awarded, the grant would fund daily snacks for youth participating in YouthCity 2023 summer programs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) 2.Ordinances: Form Based Urban Neighborhood Zoning Text Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would create the Form-Based Mixed Use 11 (FB-MU11), previously titled Form-Based Urban Neighborhood 3 or FB-UN3, as well as an ordinance that would amend the zoning map to apply the FB-MU11 to the fleet block property. The fleet block property is located between 800 South and 900 South Streets and 300 West and 400 West Street. Form- Based code focuses on the form and appearance of buildings and has more regulations that control those aspects of development than traditional zones. The proposal would apply regulations such as building design, height, bulk, use, and other development standards and land uses. The new zoning district is being renamed FB-MU11 in anticipation of future related form-based zoning districts being created. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277 For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFleetBlock. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Nick Tarbet gave a brief overview of the proposal. Isabella Grow, Levy Woodruff, Tiffany & Raven James, Ilana Raskind, Kara Cope and Collin Williams spoke to the proposal stating the following: • A new zone should not be created • The area should be respected and protected • Protect the existing memorials within the Fleet Block MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4 • Take into consideration the families whose loved ones were memorialized in the murals on the Fleet Block and make the area represent the community • Require the new developer to include a community center in the development that would support the surrounding area • The community wanted green space and amenities that would help those living in the area • Create a walkable zone, not one that was dependent on cars • Ensure important City history was protected for the minorities who lived here Peter Corroon spoke in favor of the proposed amendment but expressed concern over the layout and the effects a zero side yard setback would have on developments. Jesse Plantz presented a vision of the Fleet Block that would create an attraction for people while keeping what the neighborhood desired. Council Member Puy reminded everyone of the discussions regarding the property, ensuring the project was diverse and represented the community. Council Member Puy added that the City was listening and doing what they could to move forward. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Mano to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council Meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 3.Resolution: Ivory University House Public Benefits Analysis The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would adopt the conclusions of the public benefit analysis and authorize impact and permit fee waivers and refunds for Ivory University House L3C. In return, over a period of ten years, Ivory University House would pledge need-based scholarships for Salt Lake City residents valued at the same amount as the fee waivers and refunds. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Allison Rowland gave a brief overview of the proposal. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 5 Analise Wilson (Ivory University House Attorney ) spoke to Ivory University House business plan, cost savings for construction, impact analysis, lack of impact to the City with waiving the fees, and encouraged the City to approve the proposal. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The proposed amendment includes additional funding for downtown open streets events this coming fall, local matching funds for Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grants to rebuild bridges over the Jordan River, and funding expanded elements of the 2100 South reconstruction project through the Sugar House Business District, among other items. For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 and Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Ben Luedtke gave a brief overview of the proposal. Dave Iltis spoke to the project on 2100 South and the need for better pedestrian and bike crossings. Council Members and Jennifer Bruno discussed Item A-3 (Impact Fees for the Ivory University House) and how they would be addressed if the budget amendment were approved. Motion: Moved by Council Member Valdemoros, seconded by Council Member Petro to close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 6 5.Ordinance: Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will accept public comment and consider approving an ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to separately address lane closures and sidewalk closures. For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 and Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 7 Ben Luedtke gave a brief overview of the proposal. Dave Iltis expressed support for the amendment and asked the Council to find a solution that would force contractors to follow the ordinance when closing pedestrian and bicycle lanes during construction. Motion: Moved by Council Member Mano, seconded by Council Member Puy to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 49 of 2023, amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2024 related to land and sidewalk closure fees. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1.Ordinance: 1782 South 1600 East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for 1782 South 1600 East. The amendments are sought for the purpose of eventually legalizing the property in order to construct a single-family dwelling. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from R-1/7000 (Single-Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Residential). The applicant is also seeking to amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. No development plans have been submitted at this time. The properties are within Council District 7. Petitioner: Blaine Properties LLC, Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-01138 & PLNPCM2022-01139 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 13, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Young, seconded by Council Member Wharton to reject the ordinance. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 8 Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Mano, seconded by Council Member Petro to to pass a legislative action requesting staff study a zoning text amendment which would consider amending all R-1 single-family zones. The study should include but not be limited to the following possible changes: • Consolidating of R-1/5,000, 7,000, and 12,000 into one zone, reducing the minimum lot size, removing, or reducing minimum frontage, easing flag lot standards, and allowing single-family attached housing in all zones. I further move that we initiate a separate study to consider zoning map amendments along collector and arterial roads to allow greater residential density and mixed-use developments. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Valdemoros, seconded by Council Member Mano to that the City collaborate with the County to get a better understanding of how City and County ordinances interact pertaining to lot subdivision process and update ordinances if needed to make sure both are consistent. I further move that we ask the administration to identify residential properties that are non-conforming lots within the City and create a streamlined process to legalize them. And recommended to the Council budgetary needs if a 3 party is needed to help accomplish this. Councilmember Wharton friendly amendment to remove the second paragraph, Councilmember Valdemoros accepted the amendment. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Dugan, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to to include in the legislative action that the Council will hold a work session with the Administration on the scope of the study to include: 1. Alignment with Thriving in Place 2. Alignment with future land/water policy 3. Alignment with public transportation needs 4. Our vision of a walkable city Councilmember Mano friendly amendment to move the four points into the first study mentioned in the initial motion. Councilmember Dugan accepted the amendment. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young rd MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 9 Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Council Member Mano clarified the language in the motion. Council Members discussed the following: • Concerns over the proposal • How the proposed changes would affect each Council District • Needing to address zoning comprehensively, addressing non-conforming lots as wells as other zoning issues City-wide before this was approved • Language in the motion regarding a comprehensive study 2.Ordinance: Sugar House Drive-Through Text Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to drive-through uses in the Sugar House Business District. The proposal would prohibit new drive-through facilities in the district by removing the permitted use designations for all drive-through facilities under CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts (21A.33.030). The amendment would also clarify that drive-through facilities are only permitted when specifically listed as permitted in the land use tables. Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00026 For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SugarHouseDriveThroughs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Petro, seconded by Council Member Young to adopt Ordinance 53 of 2023, prohibiting all new drive-through facilities in the Sugar House Business Districts CSHBD1 and CSHBD2. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. No comments MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 10 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) Council Member Dugan reviewed the rules of decorum. Council Member Petro spoke to the discussion on the Northpoint Small Area Plan that was held during the Work Session. Matthew Yun (via an interpreter) requested a public hearing to be held in District One regarding the requirement of vegetation/trees in park strips. Haley Ashton, Brian Moench, Courtney Henley, Katie Pappas, Mary Paul, Tussy King, Jean Tabin, Laurie Bragg, Robbie Altman, Jason Wessel, Jade Cantwell, Marcia Walke, Stan Holmes, Jan Ellen Burton, Lauren Griffeth, Denise Payne, Keri Bry, Erin Chatterton, Dave Iltis, Jerry Schmidt and Heidi Hoven spoke to the Northpoint Small Area Plan, stating (in summary) the following: • Discussion regarding the plan held during the Work Session was welcomed • Needing to protect the environment • Impacts to the Great Salt Lake and the importance of protecting the lake • Westpointe community was in opposition to the rezone and supported the residents of Northpoint • Professor Ben Abbott’s report on the Great Salt Lake • Creation of a wetland zone around the lake • Encouraging the Council to take time to make the right decision • Agriculture zoning designation bought time but could have detrimental effects on the area • Lake was not a resource to be played with • Development was creating a public health issue with the dust • Water conservation and issues with the proposed landscaping in park strips/yards • Request to require current warehouses to be filled before more were constructed • Current construction was causing physical and mental health issues for the surrounding neighborhoods • Preserve the bike trails in the area and add a connecter trail to the Jordan River • Consolidate the Streets, Transportation and Engineering Departments into one to ensure projects were completed Cindy Cromer spoke to Planning Commissioner Maurine Bachman’s service to the City and the great accomplishments made during Maurine’s time on the Commission. Bernie Hart spoke to the discussions on homelessness and the solutions that were achieved due to the tough questions being asked. Mary O’Connell spoke to the University of Utah’s plans for Sunnyside Park that went against the East Bench Master Plan, thanked the Mayor for not selling portions of the park to the University, and asked the Council to please stop plans to build a bigger stadium. Collin Williams spoke to the need to ensure the City was habitable in the future, MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 11 increase electric vehicle (EV) capability in new developments and City upgrades, consideration of dwelling unit amplification requirements, moving away from using gas in buildings – use electricity instead. Soren Simonsen spoke to the elimination of drive-through’s in the Sugar House Business District, the need to eliminate drive-through’s in other areas of Sugar House, encouraged the Council to look at form-based code beyond what was being done currently, carefully consider the Jordan River materials regarding the Northpoint Small Area Plan for solutions that were more practical and sensitive to the neighborhood. E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. G.CONSENT: 1.Grant: Jordan River Debris and Tree Removal The Council will consider approving a grant from the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands (FF&SL) to the Division of Trails & Natural Lands. The FF&SL provided the City $50,000 from its Navigational Hazards Fund to support the Jordan River Debris and Tree Removal Project. The funds are not associated with a current grant application or award. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 12 2.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 2350 North and Annexation at Approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider a request for an annexation and zoning changes for properties located at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane. The changes include: Annexation into Salt Lake City approximately 28 acres of property generally located at approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane. The annexation requires designating a zone for each property within the annexation area. The properties are proposed to be zoned as follows: •2440 N Rose Park Lane (City-owned) – OS, Open Space •2441 N Rose Park Lane (Hunter Stables) – R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use •2462 N Rose Park Lane (State-owned) – OS, Open Space Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane from AG- 2 – Agricultural to R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use. The property is currently within Salt Lake City boundaries. Although the petitions propose specific zones for the properties, the Council may consider other zones with similar characteristics. The properties at 2350 and 2441 North are currently used for horse boarding and outdoor equipment storage. The changes would facilitate the future development of a mixed-use, multi-family residential development with potentially 1800 dwelling units. Additional properties at 2440 North (City-owned) and 2462 North Rose Park Lane (State- owned) would be annexed into the City as part of the petition. Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01124 & PLNPCM2021-01134. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 13 3.Board Appointment: Library Board – Darell Schmick The Council will consider approving the appointment of Darell Schmick to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 4.Board Appointment: Library Board – Sariah Toronto The Council will consider approving the appointment of Sariah Toronto to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 14 5.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Turner Bitton The Council will consider approving the appointment of Turner Bitton to the Planning Commission for a term ending December 31, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. 6.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Carlos Santos-Rivera The Council will consider approving the appointment of Carlos Santos-Rivera to the Planning Commission for a term ending December 31, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 15 Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Mano to approve the Consent agenda. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 5, 2023 16 Meeting adjourned at 9:25 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, September 5, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, September 12, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro The following Council Members were absent: Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano Present Legislative Leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Thais Stewart – Deputy City Recorder, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant The meeting was called to order at 7:06 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Darin Mano will conduct the limited formal meeting. Council Member Petro conducted the meeting. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE. D.COMMENTS: NONE. E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Advice and Consent: 911 Dispatch Executive Director – Lisa Kehoe The Council will consider approving the appointment of Lisa Kehoe as the 911 Dispatch Executive Director. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions. Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to approve Lisa Kehoe as the 911 Dispatch Executive Director. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2 F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. G.CONSENT: 1.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board - Isaac Astill The Council will consider approving the appointment of Isaac Astill to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 28, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3 Motion: Moved by Council Member Wharton, seconded by Council Member Dugan to approve the Consent Agenda. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Sarah Young, Victoria Petro ABSENT: Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 7:08 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, September 12, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 12, 2023 4 PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday, September 19, 2023. The following Council Members were present: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Present Legislative Leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson – Executive Director, Jennifer Bruno – Deputy Director, Lehua Weaver – Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative Leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto – Chief of Staff, Lisa Shaffer – Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis – City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman – City Recorder, Sylvia Richards – Public Policy Analyst, Michelle Barney – Minutes & Records Clerk, Isaac Canedo – Public Engagement Communication Specialist, Taylor Hill – Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst, Scott Corpany – Staff Assistant, Nick Tarbet – Public Policy Analyst The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 1 A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Dan Dugan will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4.The Council will approve the Truth-in-Taxation meeting minutes of August 15, 2023. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Puy, seconded by Councilmember Mano to approve the Truth in Taxation meeting minutes of August 15, 2023. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass B.PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items B1 & B2 will be heard as one public hearing. 1. Grant Application: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. If awarded, the grant would fund professional travel and training for sworn and civilian staff; pole cameras; high-speed license plate recognition technology; climbing equipment; night vision goggles and mounts; optics; ballistic-rated windshields; surveillance trailer maintenance and replacement; K9 GPS and narcotics supplies; community policing and targeted enforcement overtime; subaward to Salt Lake County and the Unified Police Department. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 2 2.Grant Application: Jordan River Tree and Debris Removal The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Trails & Natural Lands Division to the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands. If awarded, the grant would fund the removal of dead and obstructing trees, branches, and organic debris from the Jordan River Water Trail corridor, which would enhance safe and accessible non-motorized watercraft navigation. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3 Sylvia Richards gave a brief overview of the grant requests/programs. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Petro to close the public hearing and refer items B1 and B-2 to a future Consent Agenda. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass 3.Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 2350 North and Annexation at Approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane The Council will accept public comment and consider a request for an annexation and zoning changes for properties located at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane. The changes include: Annexation into Salt Lake City approximately 28 acres of property generally located at approximately 2441 North Rose Park Lane. The annexation requires designating a zone for each property within the annexation area. The properties are proposed to be zoned as follows: •2440 N Rose Park Lane (City-owned) – OS, Open Space •2441 N Rose Park Lane (Hunter Stables) – R-MU, Residential/Mixed-Use •2462 N Rose Park Lane (State-owned) – OS, Open Space Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2350 North Rose Park Lane from AG- 2 – Agricultural to R-MU, Residential/Mixed Use. The property is currently within Salt Lake City boundaries. Although the petitions propose specific zones for the properties, the Council may consider other zones with similar characteristics. The properties at 2350 and 2441 North are currently used for horse boarding and outdoor equipment storage. The changes would facilitate the future development of a mixed-use, multi-family residential development with potentially 1800 dwelling units. Additional properties at 2440 North (City-owned) and 2462 North Rose Park Lane (State- owned) would be annexed into the City as part of the petition. Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01124 & PLNPCM2021-01134. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/RoseParkLaneRezone. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Nick Tarbet gave a brief overview of the proposal. Cindy Cromer, Kasey O’Connor, Jennifer Carter, Willis Kenner, Suzy George, Doug George and Kent Kingston spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating (in summary): • Living near the freeway could have harmful effects • Proposal failing to protect residents from the negative effects of pollution • The number of units proposed for the property far exceeding the space • Traffic and noise would be created • Changing the zoning would not benefit the area as it was small and adding density would impact the health of those living there • Traffic was already an issue with the soccer fields and truck traffic and the development would exacerbate the issues • The area should remain open • The proposed development would block views and take away from the beautiful nature of the area • Asked Council to not make Salt Lake look like other overcrowded cities • The property should remain rural • Proposed development would overwhelm the schools • Property was on a dead end/one lane road with traffic exceeding the current usage • Quality of life would be impacted and activities in the area were limited • The existing canal was a safety issue • Emergency crews could not access the area in a timely manner currently and additional traffic would make matters worse Jason Boal (on behalf of Applicant) thanked the Council for support and expressed willingness to work through the concerns raised by residents. Max Corwin spoke to the housing crisis in the nation, the need to create more homes for people and developments such as the proposed would help. Motion: Moved by Council Member Petro, seconded by Council Member Puy to close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1.Resolution: Ivory University House Public Benefits Analysis The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would adopt the conclusions of the public benefit analysis and authorize impact and permit fee waivers and refunds for Ivory University House L3C. In return, over a period of ten years, Ivory University House would pledge need-based scholarships for Salt Lake City residents valued at the same amount as MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 5 the fee waivers and refunds. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Item removed from the agenda per the Applicant’s request. 2.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will consider adopting an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The proposed amendment includes additional funding for downtown open streets events this coming fall, local matching funds for Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grants to rebuild bridges over the Jordan River, and funding expanded elements of the 2100 South reconstruction project through the Sugar House Business District, among other items. For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 and Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Young to adopt Ordinance 50 of 2023, amending the Fiscal Year 2024 final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet. A-1: Donation for Northeast Ball Field Sports Lighting at Riverside Park ($218,000 Donation to the CIP Fund) D-1: AFSCME MOU Allocations (Budget Neutral – reallocating existing $511,001 Non-departmental General Fund budget to the appropriate department budgets) MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6 D-2: Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) Change (Budget Neutral) D-3: Three Creeks West Roadway Rescope (Budget Neutral - $1,359,130 in the CIP Fund) D-4: Reallocate Bond Funds from 1700 East to 2100 South Reconstruction ($1.5 Million Reallocation in CIP Fund) D-5: Rescope Bridge Rehabilitation Funding as Local Match to Federal Funding for Rebuilding Three Bridges over the Jordan River, Relocating Public Utilities, and Partial Funding of 400 South Bridge ($6,348,507 in the CIP Fund) D-6: Occupied Vehicle Mitigation Team Allocation (Budget Neutral – reallocating existing $45,000 in Public Services to the Fleet Fund and IMS Fund) D-7: Fleet Vehicle Purchases Re-appropriation ($14,424,993 from Fleet Fund Balance to Fleet Vehicle Replacement Fund) AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass Motion: Moved by Council Member Puy, seconded by Council Member Wharton to adopt Ordinance 50 of 2023, approving A-2: One-time Additional Funding for Fall 2023 Downtown Open Streets Events ($250,000 from General Fund Balance) AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Sarah Young NAY: Victoria Petro, Darin Mano Final Result: 5 – 2 Pass D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. Council Member Petro thanked the Mayor and Staff for the sanctioned campground movement. 2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) Council Member Dugan reiterated the rules of decorum. Kasey O’Connor spoke to the sound wall and increased traffic on I-215 that would result from the I-15 renovations. Katie Murphy spoke regarding the pedestrian byway project that removed street parking along 800 West, and made parking for those without driveways extremely difficult and suggested moving the bulb out to align with the fire hydrant where parking was not allowed currently. Max Corwin, Jacob Evans, Cody Gillette and Adri Ballif spoke to safety of animals at rodeos and asked the Council to require a veterinarian be in attendance at all MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7 rodeos to record incidents and injuries. Liah Rosenfield spoke to the sanctioned campground, stating it was far too little, too late, homelessness had ballooned and the campground would not put a dent in the number of people in need of housing, more needed to be done to help those that did not want to go to shelters. Council Member Puy stated the State Fairpark was a state entity with their own Board of Directors and the City Council did not have authority over the Fairpark, but the Council would look into the concerns of the public regarding a recent incident at the rodeo. E.NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. G.CONSENT: 1.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1435 State Street The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 1433 and 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street from CC (Corridor Commercial) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2), amending the zoning of property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue from R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). This proposal would also amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and amend Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City code to include additional land area eligible for additional building height. The applicant's intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: Matthew Ratelle of Colmena Group, representing the property owners. Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01183 & PLNPCM2022-01184 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 5, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2.Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Approximately 2167 South 800 East The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of a City- owned alley situated adjacent to properties at 801 East, 809 East, 815 East, and 825 East Wilmington Avenue. Located within Council District 7. Petitioner: Denise Vance, Petition No.: PLNPCM2022-00802 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 3.Ordinance: Alley Vacation at Approximately 827 East Wilmington Ave The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of a City- owned alley situated adjacent to properties at 825 East, 827 East, and 829 East Wilmington Avenue, and 820 East, 826 East, and 830 East Elm Avenue. If approved, this section of the alley would be divided and given to the property owners abutting the area of the alley vacated. Petitioner: Russell Bollow, Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00225 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9 4.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendments at Approximately 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use District). This proposal would also amend the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Designations from Medium-Density Residential to High-Density Residential Mixed Use. The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner to accommodate several multifamily developments. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 5. Petitioner: TAG SLC, LLC. Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022- 00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 5.Ordinance: The Anti-Gentrification and Displacement Plan, Thriving in Place The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider an ordinance that would adopt the Thriving in Place plan as part of the City’s general plan. Thriving in Place is the City's proposed anti-displacement and mitigation plan, developed with public engagement and feedback from experts and community organizations. For more information visit http://tinyurl.com/thrivinginplace. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 12, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 10 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 6.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-24. The proposed amendment includes $24.8 million from the first issuance of the Parks, Trails & Open Space bond for several projects, creation of a new Planning & Design Division in the Public Lands Department, $2 million from the U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and a new position to facilitate creation of Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for business districts among other items. The proposed amendment also includes an ordinance to amend the Annual Compensation Plan for Non-represented Employees. For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 7.Board Appointment: Arts Council Board – Caitlin Tursic The Council will consider approving the appointment of Caitlin Tursic to the Arts Council Board for a term ending September 19, 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 19, 2023 Staff Recommendation - Approve. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11 Motion: Moved by Council Member Mano, seconded by Council Member Valdemoros to approve the Consent agenda with the exception of Item 4 – Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendments at Approximately 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street, which would be scheduled for a future Council Meeting. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Victoria Petro, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Alejandro Puy, Darin Mano, Sarah Young Final Result: 7 – 0 Pass H.ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12 Meeting adjourned at 7:46 pm Minutes Approved: _______________________________ City Council Chair Darin Mano _______________________________ City Recorder Please refer to Meeting Materials (available at www.data.slc.gov by selecting Public Body Minutes) for supportive content including electronic recordings and comments submitted prior to or during the meeting. Websites listed within the body of the Minutes may not remain active indefinitely. This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday, September 19, 2023 and is not intended to serve as a full transcript. Please refer to the electronic recording for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52- 4-203. Item B1-B3 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B-1 through B-3 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Nov. 7, 2023 NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW 11/7/23 City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 1.Yes. $238,400 from Children’s Media Workshop None FY 2023 Safe Streets for All - TravelWell Schools Demonstration Grant Funds a multi-media and digital mapping tool with an educational campaign to engage the community in the design and use of our streets. Needs Public Hearing Poten- tially $953,600 U.S. Dept. of Trans- portation Mayor’s Office 2.No.2.69 existing FTEs Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Grant Renewal of grant which provides salary & benefits for 2.69 existing FTEs as well as emergency funds to assist victims. Needs Public Hearing Yes.$346,132 Utah Office for Victims of Crime Police Dept. 3.No.1 existing FTE Volun- teer Coordinator position Know your Neighbor Workforce Services Refugee Program Grant Renewal of grant which provides salary and benefits for 1 existing FTE Volunteer Coordinator Victim Advocate position. Needs Public Hearing Yes.$100,000 State of Utah Dept. of Workforce Services Mayor’s Office Here are the Administration’s responses to policy questions from Council staff: 1.FY23 Safe Streets for All Grant– TravelWell Schools Demonstration $953,600 a. How will the digital mapping tool create safer streets? New Voices—Digital mapping using the innovative MappsLasb app will be used to create safer streets by providing an accessible multi-media story-telling platform to engage the entire community in the design and use of our streets. 21st Century mapping like most interactive media is primarily designed to be passive in nature. However, when maps are created by individuals and groups a paradigm shift is possible. A place- based personal multi-media (create your own) experience broadens the community conversation, with the potential to enliven it as well. These are my landmarks, my neighborhood, my community, my people—welcome. The nonprofit Children’s Media Workshop, a Utah educational staple since 1976 (then “Photographic” Workshop), created the first Sundance k- 12 media workshops (1984), and working with Polaroid developed innovative visual learning techniques that led to CMW creating the largest teacher training network in US history. This grant targeting the SLCSD could well produce profound effects on safer streets for all, highlighting SLC as a national model. In limited testing in 4th Grade Classrooms, the number of walkers and bikers increased 240%. Astounding yes, but low- hanging fruit—simply a return to 1965 when 70% of students walked and biked to school. b. Could you please provide a breakout of the costs (demonstration testing, digital mapping, public education materials, etc.)? Research SS4A Goals Development 25,000. 17,000. 42,000. Research Methodology 30,000. 30,000. Conclusions and Recommendations 30,000. 30,000. Data Capture Tech Integration 45,000. 30,000. 70,000. Video Production and Analysis 25,000. 20,000. 45,000. Focus Groups / Analogue Data 30,000. 30,000. Implementation Schools 65,000. 45,000. 110,000. Volunteers Coordination 20,000. 15,000. 35,000. Seniors 70,000. 10,000. 80,000. Community Partners 30,000. 50,000. 80,000. Mapping Tech 148,600. 30,000. 178,600. Mapping Tech Ongoing Development 25,000. 21,400. 46,400. Program Admin 20,000. 20,000. Personnel (Total = 3 Full Time) 210,000. 210,000. Lead Organization Admin/Integration 180,000. 180,000. Totals 953,600. 238,400. 1,192,000. 100% In-kind 2.Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Grant $346,132 Continues funding of salary and benefits for 2.69 FTE grant-funded Police Victim Advocate positions as well as funding to assist victims. Two- year cycle begins July 1, 2023; ends June 30, 2025. Could you please provide a breakout of the grant funding such as per FTE, emergency victim assistance, etc.? ▪The department will receive $173,065.90 for each of two years. In each of the two years, there is $5,000 in emergency victim fees, and the rest covers the 2.69 victim advocates' salary and fringe benefits. What types of victim compensation and assistance would be provided? ▪SLCPD Victim Advocate Program VOCA grant emergency funds •Funds can only be used when no other funding sources are available to meet the victims’ immediate needs •Use of funds MAY have to be staffed with the Utah Office for Victims of Crime grant personnel or auditors to determine if VOCA allowable •Funds can not be used to assist the offender (for example no rent on an apartment that is shared with the offender) •Funds can not be given directly to the victim – must be paid to vendor, landlord, grocery store, etc. •Emergency funds can be used for: •Short term hotel stays for victim safety (when victims don’t qualify for DV shelters, or DV shelters are full and decline to help the victim) •Transportation costs to help victim get to a safe location, access medical attention, or access victim services •Uber/Lyft •Tank of gas for victim’s vehicle •Bus/train/plane ticket •Food, clothing, hygiene items to meet basic human needs until other victim services providers are available during business hours •911 phones and/or minutes to load to the phone •Rent to prevent eviction 3. Renewal of Know Your Neighbor Grant $100,000 Continues funding of salary and benefits for 1.0 FTE grant-funded Volunteer Coordinator position. - Is this a one-year / 12-month grant? - This grant had a starting date of 10/01/2022 with an original end date of 10/30/2023. DWS is extending that end date to 09/30/2024 and adding $100,000 to the original $100,000 amount. At this time, it is a one year grant, however, DWS could decide to extend it again. Are any program expenses also paid for from this grant? No, this grant only funds salary and benefits. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Office of the City Council | Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Lehua Weaver; Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer; Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com; Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, Sarah Behrens, Amy Dorsey, Sandee Moore; Department of Police | Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard CC: Office of the Mayor | Jennifer Newell; Division of Transportation | Jon Larsen, Julianne Sabula FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg DATE: July 17, 2023 SUBJECT: Safe Streets for All Fiscal Year 2023 | TravelWell Schools Demonstration FUNDING AGENCY: U.S. Department of Transportation GRANT PROGRAM: Safe Streets for All Fiscal Year 2023: Planning and Demonstration Grants REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $953,600 DEPARTMENT: Office of the Mayor COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Children’s Media Workshop DATE SUBMITTED: July 10, 2023 SPECIFICS: □ Equipment/Supplies Only □ Technical Assistance □ Provides FTE Position □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Match Required $238,400 In-Kind Services and Cash GRANT DETAILS: The Office of the Mayor requested $953,600 for the TravelWell Schools demonstration project on behalf of the non-profit Children’s Media Workshop. The project tests and refines a multi-media and digital mapping tool augmented with an educational campaign to deliver multi-disciplinary messaging aligned with the Safe System Approach targeting underserved populations, citizen behavioral activities, and community engagement and empowerment. The anticipated outcome is transformational change through real-time identification of travel behaviors, problems, and solutions resulting in zero deaths on Salt Lake City roadways. Children’s Media Workshop and MappsLab LLC developed the TravelWell Schools digital mapping tool that the project will test on a small-scale to gauge effectiveness and assess for inclusion in the Safe Streets for All Action Plan under development by Wasatch Front Regional Council. Children’s Media Workshop has committed to provide the full $238,400 worth in non-federal match. Salt Lake City is committing $0 worth in non-federal match. Item B1-B3 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B-1 through B-3 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Nov. 7, 2023 NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW 11/7/23 City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 1.Yes. $238,400 from Children’s Media Workshop None FY 2023 Safe Streets for All - TravelWell Schools Demonstration Grant Funds a multi-media and digital mapping tool with an educational campaign to engage the community in the design and use of our streets. Needs Public Hearing Poten- tially $953,600 U.S. Dept. of Trans- portation Mayor’s Office 2.No.2.69 existing FTEs Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Grant Renewal of grant which provides salary & benefits for 2.69 existing FTEs as well as emergency funds to assist victims. Needs Public Hearing Yes.$346,132 Utah Office for Victims of Crime Police Dept. 3.No.1 existing FTE Volun- teer Coordinator position Know your Neighbor Workforce Services Refugee Program Grant Renewal of grant which provides salary and benefits for 1 existing FTE Volunteer Coordinator Victim Advocate position. Needs Public Hearing Yes.$100,000 State of Utah Dept. of Workforce Services Mayor’s Office Here are the Administration’s responses to policy questions from Council staff: 1.FY23 Safe Streets for All Grant– TravelWell Schools Demonstration $953,600 a. How will the digital mapping tool create safer streets? New Voices—Digital mapping using the innovative MappsLasb app will be used to create safer streets by providing an accessible multi-media story-telling platform to engage the entire community in the design and use of our streets. 21st Century mapping like most interactive media is primarily designed to be passive in nature. However, when maps are created by individuals and groups a paradigm shift is possible. A place- based personal multi-media (create your own) experience broadens the community conversation, with the potential to enliven it as well. These are my landmarks, my neighborhood, my community, my people—welcome. The nonprofit Children’s Media Workshop, a Utah educational staple since 1976 (then “Photographic” Workshop), created the first Sundance k- 12 media workshops (1984), and working with Polaroid developed innovative visual learning techniques that led to CMW creating the largest teacher training network in US history. This grant targeting the SLCSD could well produce profound effects on safer streets for all, highlighting SLC as a national model. In limited testing in 4th Grade Classrooms, the number of walkers and bikers increased 240%. Astounding yes, but low- hanging fruit—simply a return to 1965 when 70% of students walked and biked to school. b. Could you please provide a breakout of the costs (demonstration testing, digital mapping, public education materials, etc.)? Research SS4A Goals Development 25,000. 17,000. 42,000. Research Methodology 30,000. 30,000. Conclusions and Recommendations 30,000. 30,000. Data Capture Tech Integration 45,000. 30,000. 70,000. Video Production and Analysis 25,000. 20,000. 45,000. Focus Groups / Analogue Data 30,000. 30,000. Implementation Schools 65,000. 45,000. 110,000. Volunteers Coordination 20,000. 15,000. 35,000. Seniors 70,000. 10,000. 80,000. Community Partners 30,000. 50,000. 80,000. Mapping Tech 148,600. 30,000. 178,600. Mapping Tech Ongoing Development 25,000. 21,400. 46,400. Program Admin 20,000. 20,000. Personnel (Total = 3 Full Time) 210,000. 210,000. Lead Organization Admin/Integration 180,000. 180,000. Totals 953,600. 238,400. 1,192,000. 100% In-kind 2.Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Grant $346,132 Continues funding of salary and benefits for 2.69 FTE grant-funded Police Victim Advocate positions as well as funding to assist victims. Two- year cycle begins July 1, 2023; ends June 30, 2025. Could you please provide a breakout of the grant funding such as per FTE, emergency victim assistance, etc.? ▪The department will receive $173,065.90 for each of two years. In each of the two years, there is $5,000 in emergency victim fees, and the rest covers the 2.69 victim advocates' salary and fringe benefits. What types of victim compensation and assistance would be provided? ▪SLCPD Victim Advocate Program VOCA grant emergency funds •Funds can only be used when no other funding sources are available to meet the victims’ immediate needs •Use of funds MAY have to be staffed with the Utah Office for Victims of Crime grant personnel or auditors to determine if VOCA allowable •Funds can not be used to assist the offender (for example no rent on an apartment that is shared with the offender) •Funds can not be given directly to the victim – must be paid to vendor, landlord, grocery store, etc. •Emergency funds can be used for: •Short term hotel stays for victim safety (when victims don’t qualify for DV shelters, or DV shelters are full and decline to help the victim) •Transportation costs to help victim get to a safe location, access medical attention, or access victim services •Uber/Lyft •Tank of gas for victim’s vehicle •Bus/train/plane ticket •Food, clothing, hygiene items to meet basic human needs until other victim services providers are available during business hours •911 phones and/or minutes to load to the phone •Rent to prevent eviction 3. Renewal of Know Your Neighbor Grant $100,000 Continues funding of salary and benefits for 1.0 FTE grant-funded Volunteer Coordinator position. - Is this a one-year / 12-month grant? - This grant had a starting date of 10/01/2022 with an original end date of 10/30/2023. DWS is extending that end date to 09/30/2024 and adding $100,000 to the original $100,000 amount. At this time, it is a one year grant, however, DWS could decide to extend it again. Are any program expenses also paid for from this grant? No, this grant only funds salary and benefits. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO:Office of the City Council | Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Lehua Weaver; Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer; Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com; Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, Sarah Behrens, Amy Dorsey, Sandee Moore; Department of Police | Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard CC: Roxana Orellana, David Pond, Justin Anderson, Hannah Vickery FROM:Laura Nygaard DATE:September 20, 2023 SUBJECT:2023 VOCA Grant Application FUNDING AGENCY:Utah Office for Victims of Crime (UOVC) FEDERAL PROGRAM:Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT:$346,131.80 DEPARTMENT:Police COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None required – support letters from community partners DATE SUBMITTED:May 3, 2023 SPECIFICS: Equipment/Supplies (Emergency Funds for Victims) □Technical Assistance Provides 2.69 FTE Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: □Match Required □ In-Kind and □ Cash GRANT DETAILS: •The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim Advocate positions. Additionally, there are emergency funds for assisting victims included in the application. •The grant will fund a two-year cycle, starting July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2025. Item B1-B3 Page 1 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 – Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B-1 through B-3 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Project Timeline: Public Hearing: Nov. 7, 2023 Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO:Office of the City Council | Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Taylor Hill, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Lehua Weaver; Office of the Mayor | Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer; Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com; Department of Finance | Mary Beth Thompson, Aaron Price, Sarah Behrens, Amy Dorsey, Sandee Moore; Department of Police | Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard CC: Roxana Orellana FROM:Amy Dorsey DATE:September 15, 2023 SUBJECT:Renewal of Know Your Neighbor grant from DWS. FUNDING AGENCY:State of Utah Department of Workforce Services FEDERAL PROGRAM:Renewal of Know Your Neighbor grant. REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT:$100,000 DEPARTMENT:Office of the Mayor COLLABORATING AGENCIES: DWS DATE SUBMITTED:September 15, 2023 SPECIFICS: □Equipment/Supplies Only □Technical Assistance Provides 1 FTE □ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: □Match Required □ In-Kind and □ Cash GRANT DETAILS: •This is a renewal of the grant Know Your Neighbor . •The grant pays for a full time Volunteer Coordinator position for the Know Your Neighbor Refugee Volunteer Program which is managed in partnership with the Salt Lake City Mayor’s Office and the Department of Workforce Services. NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL REVIEW 11/7/23 City Match Required? Number of FTEs Requested Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual Grant Total Grant & and FTE Amount Funding Agency Requested By 1.Yes. $238,400 from Children’s Media Workshop None FY 2023 Safe Streets for All - TravelWell Schools Demonstration Grant Funds a multi-media and digital mapping tool with an educational campaign to engage the community in the design and use of our streets. Needs Public Hearing Poten- tially $953,600 U.S. Dept. of Trans- portation Mayor’s Office 2.No.2.69 existing FTEs Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Grant Renewal of grant which provides salary & benefits for 2.69 existing FTEs as well as emergency funds to assist victims. Needs Public Hearing Yes.$346,132 Utah Office for Victims of Crime Police Dept. 3.No.1 existing FTE Volun- teer Coordinator position Know your Neighbor Workforce Services Refugee Program Grant Renewal of grant which provides salary and benefits for 1 existing FTE Volunteer Coordinator Victim Advocate position. Needs Public Hearing Yes.$100,000 State of Utah Dept. of Workforce Services Mayor’s Office Here are the Administration’s responses to policy questions from Council staff: 1.FY23 Safe Streets for All Grant– TravelWell Schools Demonstration $953,600 a. How will the digital mapping tool create safer streets? New Voices—Digital mapping using the innovative MappsLasb app will be used to create safer streets by providing an accessible multi-media story-telling platform to engage the entire community in the design and use of our streets. 21st Century mapping like most interactive media is primarily designed to be passive in nature. However, when maps are created by individuals and groups a paradigm shift is possible. A place- based personal multi-media (create your own) experience broadens the community conversation, with the potential to enliven it as well. These are my landmarks, my neighborhood, my community, my people—welcome. The nonprofit Children’s Media Workshop, a Utah educational staple since 1976 (then “Photographic” Workshop), created the first Sundance k- 12 media workshops (1984), and working with Polaroid developed innovative visual learning techniques that led to CMW creating the largest teacher training network in US history. This grant targeting the SLCSD could well produce profound effects on safer streets for all, highlighting SLC as a national model. In limited testing in 4th Grade Classrooms, the number of walkers and bikers increased 240%. Astounding yes, but low- hanging fruit—simply a return to 1965 when 70% of students walked and biked to school. b. Could you please provide a breakout of the costs (demonstration testing, digital mapping, public education materials, etc.)? Research SS4A Goals Development 25,000. 17,000. 42,000. Research Methodology 30,000. 30,000. Conclusions and Recommendations 30,000. 30,000. Data Capture Tech Integration 45,000. 30,000. 70,000. Video Production and Analysis 25,000. 20,000. 45,000. Focus Groups / Analogue Data 30,000. 30,000. Implementation Schools 65,000. 45,000. 110,000. Volunteers Coordination 20,000. 15,000. 35,000. Seniors 70,000. 10,000. 80,000. Community Partners 30,000. 50,000. 80,000. Mapping Tech 148,600. 30,000. 178,600. Mapping Tech Ongoing Development 25,000. 21,400. 46,400. Program Admin 20,000. 20,000. Personnel (Total = 3 Full Time) 210,000. 210,000. Lead Organization Admin/Integration 180,000. 180,000. Totals 953,600. 238,400. 1,192,000. 100% In-kind 2.Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Grant $346,132 Continues funding of salary and benefits for 2.69 FTE grant-funded Police Victim Advocate positions as well as funding to assist victims. Two- year cycle begins July 1, 2023; ends June 30, 2025. Could you please provide a breakout of the grant funding such as per FTE, emergency victim assistance, etc.? ▪The department will receive $173,065.90 for each of two years. In each of the two years, there is $5,000 in emergency victim fees, and the rest covers the 2.69 victim advocates' salary and fringe benefits. What types of victim compensation and assistance would be provided? ▪SLCPD Victim Advocate Program VOCA grant emergency funds •Funds can only be used when no other funding sources are available to meet the victims’ immediate needs •Use of funds MAY have to be staffed with the Utah Office for Victims of Crime grant personnel or auditors to determine if VOCA allowable •Funds can not be used to assist the offender (for example no rent on an apartment that is shared with the offender) •Funds can not be given directly to the victim – must be paid to vendor, landlord, grocery store, etc. •Emergency funds can be used for: •Short term hotel stays for victim safety (when victims don’t qualify for DV shelters, or DV shelters are full and decline to help the victim) •Transportation costs to help victim get to a safe location, access medical attention, or access victim services •Uber/Lyft •Tank of gas for victim’s vehicle •Bus/train/plane ticket •Food, clothing, hygiene items to meet basic human needs until other victim services providers are available during business hours •911 phones and/or minutes to load to the phone •Rent to prevent eviction 3. Renewal of Know Your Neighbor Grant $100,000 Continues funding of salary and benefits for 1.0 FTE grant-funded Volunteer Coordinator position. - Is this a one-year / 12-month grant? - This grant had a starting date of 10/01/2022 with an original end date of 10/30/2023. DWS is extending that end date to 09/30/2024 and adding $100,000 to the original $100,000 amount. At this time, it is a one year grant, however, DWS could decide to extend it again. Are any program expenses also paid for from this grant? No, this grant only funds salary and benefits. Item B4 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Public Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: North Temple Boulevard General Plan Amendment to Not Relocate Madsen Park MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the North Temple Boulevard Plan to keep Madsen Park at the current location and explore how to reimagine it. MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: _________________ ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 6, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods ________________________ SUBJECT: North Temple Boulevard General Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2023-00327) STAFF CONTACT: Seth Rios, Associate Planner, 801-535-7758 or seth.rios@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approves the requested General Plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall, in coordination with the Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands, initiated a request to amend the North Temple Boulevard Plan as it pertains to the recommendation to move Madsen Park. The proposal will add language to keep Madsen Park at its current location and to reimagine and improve the park. More information can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Proposed General Plan Amendment The proposed amendment will remove the recommendation to move Madsen Park. The new language will replace strategy 3-D on page 62 of the North Temple Boulevard Plan with the following language: rachel otto (Sep 8, 2023 09:13 MDT)09/08/2023 09/08/2023 PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to the Poplar Grove and Fairpark Community Councils on June 5, 2023, per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. No meeting was requested by either of the community councils. The 45-day public engagement period ended on July 20, 2023. Public Open House: An online open house was held from February 17, 2023, to July 20, 2023. Staff received no comments from the public. Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 9, 2023. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval. Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda of August 9, 2023 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of August 9, 2023 (Click to Access) c)Planning Commission Staff Report of August 9, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1)Project Chronology 2)Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3)Petition Initiation SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Amending the North Temple Boulevard Plan) An ordinance amending the North Temple Boulevard Plan to remove a recommendation to relocate Madsen Park. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on August 9, 2023, on a petition submitted by Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall in coordination with the Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands to remove the recommendation to relocate Madsen Park from the North Temple Boulevard Plan pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00327; and WHEREAS, at its August 9th, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said applications; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the North Temple Boulevard Plan. That the North Temple Boulevard Plan shall be and hereby is amended to amend Strategy 3-D on page 62 of the plan to read as shown in Exhibit “A”. The adoption of this plan amendment serves to identify the goals and objectives that are the subject of the amendment, all of which are subject to future budget appropriations. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending the North Temple Boulevard Plan - Madsen Park APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney August 16, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” 1. CHRONOLOGY Project Chronology Petition: PLNPCM2023-00327 April 25, 2023 Mayor Mendenhall, in coordination with the Public Lands Department, initiated the petition for amendments to the North Temple Boulevard Plan. June 8, 2023 Petition assigned to Seth Rios, Associate Planner June 5, 2023 Poplar Grove and Fairpark Community Councils were sent the 45-day required notice. No meeting was requested from either organization. June 5, 2023 Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. June 5- July 20, 2023 Information about the general plan amendment was posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House webpage. July 28, 2023 Planning Commission public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. July 31, 2023 Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. August 3, 2023 Staff report posted online and sent to the Planning Commission. August 9, 2023 Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to City Council. August 16, 2023 Draft ordinance forwarded to the Attorney’s Office for review. August 16, 2023 Final ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office August 17, 2023 Transmitted 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00327– Mayor Erin Mendenhall, in coordination with the Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands, initiated a request to amend the North Temple Boulevard Plan as it pertains to the recommendation to move Madsen Park. The proposal will add language to keep Madsen Park at its current location and to reimagine and improve the park. (Staff contact: Seth Rios at 801-535-7758 or seth.rios@slcgov.com). As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Seth Rios at 801-535-7758 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at seth.rios@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00327. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION Item B5 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 2157 South Lincoln Street PLNPCM2023-00239 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 2157 South Lincoln Street PLNPCM2023-00239 BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 3, 2023 briefing Council Members expressed general support for the proposal. A desire to maintain park strips and trees along the Lincoln Street and Elm Avenue frontages was expressed rather than extending the sidewalks to the curb. Planning staff stated if a condition to increase sidewalk width is not included in the ordinance or a development agreement, sidewalk widths required under City Code would apply. The petitioner provided aerial renderings showing various sidewalk widths. They are included as Attachment A to this report. Appreciation was expressed for the amount of parking spaces provided in the proposal, as there are on- street parking challenges in the area. Parking for electric vehicles and bicycles was also discussed. The petitioner stated they are planning to provide at least the required spaces for both. Council Members discussed preservation of the Victorian home on the site and whether listing the property as a landmark site would be preferable to a development agreement. Planning staff stated that a certificate of appropriateness would be required for external modifications if the property was listed as a landmark site. It was also noted that a development agreement would run with the land and future owners of the property would be subject to development agreement conditions. The petitioner said he will work with the property owners on conditions for a development agreement for the Council to review. Planning staff followed up with the petitioner about this and will share the proposed conditions when they are received. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 3, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 The following information was provided for the September 5, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the approximately 0.7-acre parcel at 2157 South Lincoln Street in City Council District Seven from its current RB (Residential/Business District) zoning designation to C-SHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). In addition to the subject parcel, the petitioner owns parcels at 2131 South Lincoln Street and 2134, 2140, 2156, and 2160 South 1000 East which are currently zoned CSHBD2. Under the petitioner’s proposal, a 60- foot tall (maximum CSHBD2 building height) 238-unit market rate apartment complex would be constructed on the six parcels. The proposed unit mix would be 79 studios (33%), 90 1-bedroom (38%), and 69 (29%) 2-bedroom units with 240 onsite parking spaces. A Victorian home currently used as an office building is on the subject property and the petitioner proposes to retain it for use as amenity space for residents of the proposed apartment complex. It should be noted that the home is not in a local historic district and has no protection from demolition. In its recommendation to the City Council the Planning Commission included a condition that the petitioner enter into a development agreement with the City to ensure that the home is preserved. As shown in the map below, area zoning is primarily CSHBD2, with some RMF-35 (Moderate-Density Multi-family Residential) on the subject block and blocks to the east and west. Blocks to the south are a mix of FB-SE (Form-Based Special Purpose Edge) on properties fronting 2100 South, CSHBD2 for properties fronting McClelland Street, and R-1/5,000 (single-family residential) between. The S-Line streetcar and bike and pedestrian greenway is approximately ½ block to the south of the subject parcel and shown in green. Page | 3 Area zoning map with the subject parcel outlined in blue and the project area outlined in red. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its July 26, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which three people, including a representative from the Sugar House Community Council spoke. The commenters were supportive of the proposed zoning map amendment, but expressed concerns about parking, landscaping, and sidewalk width. Commissioners discussed sidewalk width and whether to recommend a condition requiring minimum 10- foot-wide sidewalks as called for in the Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan. It is worth noting some Commissioners felt the additional width was beneficial for the area, while others expressed concerns with loss of park strips and trees. The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. As part of its recommendation, the Commission included the above-mentioned condition to preserve the Victorian home, and a second condition to extend the width of sidewalks abutting the subject parcels to include the park strip area. Paul said sidewalk width should be specified if the Council wants to include that. Page | 4 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they would be amenable to including affordable units in the proposed development. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units? 2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the recently transmitted Affordable Housing Incentives proposal may impact this petition or development potential on the property if the petitioner will consider affordable units. 3. If supportive of the zoning map amendment, the Council may wish to discuss whether to require a development agreement that preserves the Victorian home. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. A formal site plan has been submitted to the City, but it is not within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. (It is worth noting that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the petitioner’s design review application at the same meeting it voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council on the zoning map amendment.) Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 6-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Is the C-SHBD appropriate in the proposed location? Planning staff noted the Sugar House Master Plan future land use map designates the subject property as “Business District Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale.” This is consistent with the future land use map’s designation for all other parcels on the block. It is Planning’s opinion that the requested change from RB to CSHBD2 zoning designation is reasonable and appropriate for the location. Consideration 2 – Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning As shown in the map above, area zoning is predominantly CSHBD2 on the subject block and blocks to the east and west. FB-SE, R-1/5,000, and CSHBD2 are to the south. Nearby land uses are a mix of commercial and residential. Smith’s grocery store is immediately to the west across Lincoln Street, low- and moderate- density residential, and a tire shop are to the north. A small office building, duplexes and high-density housing is to the northeast. Single-family residential is across Elm Avenue to the south. Consideration 3 – City Adopted Master Plans Planning found that the proposal is consistent with the CSHBD zoning district purpose statement which says: “The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with a transit oriented, mixed-use town center that can support a 24-hour population. The CSHBD provides residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land uses in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House Master Plan and the Sugar House Business District.” Page | 5 Planning staff further found that the proposal meets various principles and initiatives found in the Sugar House Master Plan (2005), Plan Salt Lake (2015), and the SLC Urban Design Element (1990). Consideration 4 – Preservation of the Victorian Mansion The petitioner proposes preserving the Victorian home on the subject property. As mentioned above, the home is not in a historic district and has no protection from demolition. Planning staff noted the home would provide an anchor for the project, and act as a buffer between the proposed development and single- family residential to the south across Elm Avenue. Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommended including a development agreement to preserve the home if the Council is supportive of the proposed zoning map amendment. The petitioner provided the following concept rendering illustrating how the Victorian home could be incorporated into the proposed development. Image courtesy of petitioner ZONING COMPARISON The following table compares building height and setback requirements for the current RB and proposed CSHBD2 zoning districts. RB (Current)CSHBD2 (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 30 feet 60 feet for residential use. 30 feet for nonresidential use. Front Setback 20% of lot depth, but need not exceed 25 feet. No minimum yard required. Maximum setback is 15 feet. Side Setback Corner side yard: 10 feet.Corner side yard: no minimum yard required. Maximum setback is 15 feet. Page | 6 Interior side yard: 6 feet; provided, that on interior lots one yard must be at least ten feet. Interior side yard: None required. Rear Setback 25% of lot depth, but the yard need not exceed 30 feet. None required. Analysis of Factors Attachment D (pages 67-68) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not applicable The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • April 14, 2023-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • May 15, 2023-Petition assigned to Lex Traughber, Senior Planner. o Notice mailed to the Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of Commerce. • June 7, 2023-Petitioner presented their proposal to the Sugar House Community Council, with Planning staff in attendance. Page | 7 • June 26, 2023-Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject property boundaries. • July 12, 2023-Property posted with signs for the July 26, 2023 Planning Commission hearing. • July 13, 2023-Public hearing notice mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Planning Commission agenda emailed to Planning listserv. Project posted to City Planning and State websites. • July 26, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • July 31, 2023-Draft ordinance sent to the City Attorney’s Office for review. • August 3, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • September 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. 10th and Elm Salt Lake City, Utah Sidewalk Park Strip Options © dwell design studio, llc - ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDPage 2 10th and Elm Multifamily | Salt Lake City, UT August 15, 2023 Aerial View at Lincoln and Elm: Original 5’ Park Strip © dwell design studio, llc - ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDPage 3 10th and Elm Multifamily | Salt Lake City, UT August 15, 2023 Aerial View at Lincoln and Elm: Proposed 3’ Park Strip © dwell design studio, llc - ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDPage 4 10th and Elm Multifamily | Salt Lake City, UT August 15, 2023 Aerial View at Lincoln and Elm: Removed Park Strip ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 09/08/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 09/08/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 6, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods _ SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2023-00239 2157 S. Lincoln Street Zoning Map Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner (801) 535-6184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the zoning map as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mark Isaac, representing the property owner, proposes to amend the zoning map to change the zoning for the 0.7 acre parcel located at approximately 2157 S. Lincoln Street from RB (Residential Business District) to C-SHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) in its entirety. The parcel is currently occupied by a Victorian mansion used as an office building, and the applicant intends to retain the mansion as part of the proposal. This zoning map amendment change will facilitate construction of a new multi-family residential development on a portion of the parcel. The zoning map amendment is consistent with the future land use designation for the property as outlined in the Sugar House Master Plan. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 rachel otto (Sep 8, 2023 09:11 MDT) The Planning Commission reviewed the request at a public hearing on July 26, 2023. The commission determined the request met the standards for a zoning map amendment. The commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to City Council to amend the zoning map from RB to C-SHBD2, with the following two conditions: 1. Petitioner shall enter into a development agreement to guarantee the preservation of the existing Victorian mansion currently located on the 2157 S. Lincoln Street parcel; and 2. Petitioner shall increase the width of the sidewalk to extend it to the curb abutting the parcels that are the subject of Petitioner’s design review application (Petition No. PLNPCM2023- 00092). To clarify these conditions, Planning Staff recommended the first condition because the mansion is not in a local historic district nor is it an individually listed site, and therefore demolition is not regulated and it could potentially be torn down. Retention of the mansion has always been something that was presented to the community by the developer as an amenity of the overall project and the development agreement would ensure retention. The second condition was added by the Planning Commission based on public comment at the public hearing. Section 21A.26.060(N) of the zoning ordinance addressed sidewalk width and calls for 10’ sidewalks in the C-SHBD zones. This section of code goes on to say that modifications to this requirement may be approved by the planning director if in compliance with the adopted "Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan" or its successor. The Sugar House Master Plan (Business District Design Guideline Handbook – page 20) refers to 8’ sidewalks in high traffic areas and 6’ sidewalks in low traffic areas. In addition, the Sugar House Business District Circulation and Amenities plan looks at sidewalk widths along 2100 South, Highland Drive/1100 East & McClelland/1100 East. The associated McClelland map shows the corridor that is close to this project site and calls for 5-8’ sidewalks. The applicant proposed a mix of sidewalk widths of 5-7’ depending on location. Given the residential nature of this and surrounding development, Planning Staff, after consulting with the Planning Director, supported the applicant’s proposal of 5-7’ wide sidewalks as being appropriate when considered with the tree lined parkway between the curb and the sidewalk. The Planning Commission disagreed with this assertion and stipulated a condition that the sidewalk extend to the back of the curb to effectively increase the sidewalk width. PUBLIC PROCESS: ● Early Notification – Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on June 26, 2023. In addition, the Sugar House Community Council and the Sugar House Chamber of Commerce were also provided notification on May 15, 2023. ● Sugar House Community Council – The applicant presented and discussed the proposal to rezone the property at the Sugar House Community Council meeting on June 7, 2023. Planning Staff was in attendance. ● Planning Commission Meeting – On July 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation regarding the proposal on to the City Council for decision. PLANNING AND HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of July 26, 2023 (Click Here) b) PC Minutes of July 26, 2023 (Click Here) c) PC Staff Report of July 26, 2023 (Click Here) d) PC Hearing of July 26, 2023 (Click Here) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of the property located at 2157 S. Lincoln Street from RB Residential/Business District to CSHBD2 Sugar House Business District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the property located at 2157 S. Lincoln Street from RB Residential/Business District to CSHBD2 Sugar House Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00239. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on July 26, 2023 on a petition submitted by Mark Isaac, representing the property owner, 1000 E SUGARHOUSE APARTMENTS, LLC (“Petitioner”), to rezone the property located at 2157 S. Lincoln Street (Parcel number 16-20-136-006) (the “Property”) from RB Residential/Business District to CSHBD2 Sugar House Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00239; and WHEREAS, at its July 26, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said application with the conditions provided in Section 2 below; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from RB Residential/Business District to CSHBD2 Sugar House Business District. SECTION 2. Conditions. The proposed zoning map amendment is conditioned upon the Petitioner entering into a development agreement with Salt Lake City that requires the Property’s owner and its successors to use and develop the Property as follows: 1. Petitioner shall enter into a development agreement to guarantee the preservation of the existing Victorian mansion currently located on the 2157 S. Lincoln Street parcel; and 2. Petitioner shall increase the width of the sidewalk to extend it to the curb abutting the parcels that are the subject of Petitioner’s design review application (Petition No. PLNPCM2023- 00092); and SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the conditions set forth in Section 2 are satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 4. Time. If the conditions set forth in Section 2 have not been met within one year after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the above conditions by resolution. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . Ordinance Rezoning 2157 S Lincoln Street with DA APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: August 3, 2023 By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description for the Property to be Rezoned: Address: 2157 S. Lincoln Street Tax ID No. 16-20-136-006 GENEVA PLACE 1115LOTS 1 TO 8 INCL BLK 3 GENEVA PLACE 5476- 1134 5476-1137 5851-0751,0753 5882-2969 5993-0733 6090-0374 7412- 2833 8414-8416 8526-2230 08526-2239 Contains 30,492 sq feet or 0.7 acres more or less. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2157 S. Lincoln Street Zoning Map Amendment Petition PLNPCM2023-00239 April 14, 2023 Petitions received by the City. May 15, 2023 Petition assigned to Lex Traughber. May 15, 2023 The Sugar House Community Council & the Sugar House Chamber of Commerce were emailed notification of the proposal. June 7, 2023 The applicant formally presented the proposal to the Sugar House Community Council at their regularly scheduled monthly meeting. Planning Staff was in attendance. June 26, 2023 Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject property boundaries. July 12, 2023 Property posted with signs for the July 26, 2023 Planning Commission hearing. July 13, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission’s July 26, 2023 Public Hearing mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. July 26, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation regarding the request on to the City Council for a decision. July 31, 2023 Sent a draft ordinance to the City Attorney’s Office for review reflecting the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the zoning map amendment. Requested review of the draft ordinance. August 3, 2023 Received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office. August 25, 2023 Transmittal submitted to CAN. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00239 – 2157 S. Lincoln Street Zoning Map Amendment – Mark Isaac, representing the property owner, proposes to amendment the zoning map to change the zoning for the 0.7 acre parcel noted above from RB (Residential Business District) to C-SHBD2 (Sugar House Business District) in its entirety. The parcel is currently occupied by a Victorian mansion used as an office building. This zoning map amendment change will facilitate the redevelopment of this parcel into a multi-family residential project. The subject property is located in Council District 7 represented by Sarah Young. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location. **This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Lex Traughber at (801) 535-6184 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughber@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 360 W 300 S, Suite 102 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 385-273-3888 dwelldesignstudio.com Rezoning Amendment Our Statement: We are requesting a zoning amendment of the parcel located on the corner of Lincoln and Elm, currently zoned RB to CSHBD2. Granting this request will allow us to achieve and promote a more walkable and integrated community, with higher density compatible with the envisioned master plan for the Sugar House Business District that currently neighbors this parcel on multiple sides. Our Purpose: “A dance of old and new”, a guiding principle of our design is to establish the harmony between old and new. The Victorian mansion that currently resides on this parcel is a part of Sugarhouse’s rich history, and our approach is to respect what is old and what is new. The intent is for the Victorian to be an enjoyable amenity space for the tenants of the multifamily development planned for the parcels neighboring the mansion. By granting this amendment it will allow us too also better incorporate the new build into the Victorian with the reduction of setback requirements associated to the CSHBD2. The Mansion is currently used by a small investment firm, and the architectural beauty of the building is underappreciated due to the privacy of its use. By including the mansion in the residential development zone, it will enable the use of an underutilized architectural gem. Reasons Why: 1. Not granting this amendment will leave this parcel isolated to the rest of the zoning in the area, which in turn works against promoting the walkable, more transit-oriented district that Sugar House Master plan is working hard to achieve. 2. The design intent is to integrate the Victorian mansion into the new build. By not granting this amendment, the separation requirements between the two zones would be detrimental to the project by not enabling a more direct connection between the 2 structures. 3. Additionally, by including the Victorian Mansion in the development, a piece of Sugarhouse’s historical architectural fabric will be permanently protected. Request amending the Zoning Map: The request will amend the existing Zoning Map. The parcel to be amended is 16-20-136-006-000 (see attached zoning map for reference). 360 W 300 S, Suite 102 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 385-273-3888 dwelldesignstudio.com 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STA OWN_ZIP NUPETCO ASSOCIATES, LLCET AL 2001 S WINDSOR ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SUTTONS WESTERN WHOLESALEFLOORING, INC 823 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SUGARHOUSE DISTRIBUTING INC 7997 S HUNTERS MEADOW CIR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093 LANDMARK 973 E 2100 S LLC PO BOX 980580 PARK CITY UT 84098 NEILSON, DANIEL L &STACEY M; JT 2092 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SMITH'S FOOD KING PROPERTIESINC 1014 VINE ST 7TH FLOOR CINCINNATI OH 45202 INGRAM BARTON HOLDINGS, LLC 733 N MAIN ST SPANISH FORK UT 84660 FLEEGE, JAMES 922 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 WAAGEN, ANGELA M &KIM C; JT 924 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 TREMBLAY SIMES FAM TRET AL 8769 S WILLOW GREEN DR SANDY UT 84093 SAPPINGTON, DANIELLESAPPINGTON, JONAS 968 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SMITH, ABRAHAM &COLTON, KIMBERLY; JT 2186 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 HART, ROBERT J 2190 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SUGARMONT PLACE DEVELOPMENTLLC 733 N MAIN ST SPANISH FORK UT 84660 SORENSON, BLAIR W &MARGENE; TRS PO BOX 526136 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 1000 E SUGARHOUSE APARTMENTS,LLC 2157 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 1000 E SUGARHOUSE APARTMENTS,LLC 2156 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 1000 E SUGARHOUSE APARTMENTS,LLC 2160 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 AGHDAS SIMIN TOOMEY LIV TRTOOMEY, AGHDAS S; TR 635 N DEARBORN ST CHICAGO IL 60654 974 EAST 2100 SOUTH, LLC 1075 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RYANS ON ELM, LLC 948 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 STEVENSON, AARON N &CAITLIN B; JT 956 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 BRADY, CONNOR; JTHANKS, CANDACE; JT 960 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 JOHNSON, KRISTI M &GIBSON, MARSHA; JT 2187 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 CARLISLE, JOHN W &DREES, BETH E; JT 2195 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 LASKOWSKI, STEPHEN E; JTCATE, SHELBY; JT 2197 S LINCOLN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ROSA M CASTRO TRCASTRO, ROSA M; TR 2192 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 WHEELER, DAVID S; JTWHEELER, MICHELLE M; JT 2196 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Property Owner 968 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Property Owner 974 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Property Owner 11724 S SUN TEA WY SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 Property Owner 1525 E REDONDO AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 HARVARD PLUMB LLC 1468 E HARVARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MCCLELLAND STREET ASSOCIATESLC 1165 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;TR ET AL 428 W RIVERSIDE AVE SPOKANE WA 99201 MILES, GARETT &HALEY; JT 42843 CHAMPNEY CT BROADLANDS VA 20148 ZHAO, ZHONGLIANG &TANG, WEI; JT 8156 S MAIO DR SANDY UT 84093 RUELAS, AURELIO 1015 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ROCKWOOD INVESTMENTASSOCIATES, LC 5882 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84121 MCCLELLAND STREETASSOCIATES LC 1165 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SREIT SUGAR FLATS SLC, LLC 2340 COLLINS AVE MIAMI FL 33139 DILLON, JAMIL 1002 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 HERTZEL, JONDAVID F 1010 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 REIMHERR, PATRICK M 1014 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 HAO NGOC EVANS TREVANS, HAO N; TR 887 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 GOOD, FOREST R 2187 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 MURDOCK, VALERIE 2193 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 MARK E PITTMAN REV TRPITTMAN, MARK E; TR 2195 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 DIXON PLACE LLC 2170 S MCCLELLAND ST #100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 935 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 955 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 959 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 967 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 973 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 975 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 922 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 910 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 916 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 932 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 940 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2185 S 900 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 960 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2131 S LINCOLN ST Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2134 S 1000 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2140 S 1000 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 944 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 974 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1001 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1020 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2124 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1003 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1007 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2141 S 1000 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1010 E 2100 S Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2150 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 1024 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2170 S MCCLELLAND ST Salt Lake City UT 84106 Lex Traughber 451 S. State Street, Room 406, PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-548 5. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT (RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLICATION) From: John Stefanic To: Planning Public Comments Subject: (EXTERNAL) 10th and Elm Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 11:02:59 AM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. This is a public comment for the 10th and Elm project. I live on the end of Lincoln St, approximately one block south of the 10th and Elm project. The intersection at Lincoln and Elm is dangerous because of the reduced sight lines and street parking that surrounds all sides of the blocks. This is a popular place for patrons of Smith’s to park and it is temporary home to a lot of RVs and campervans. I have witnessed two accidents here and my wife’s car was hit by a speeding car down Elm that could not see her pulling out of Lincoln. The plans for the 10th and Elm project have the buildings extending as far up to the sidewalks as possible, and the sightlines for cars are already terrible in this neighborhood. By extending the sidewalk width, sightlines for vehicles will be improved and pedestrians will have more space to walk (it’s pretty challenging to pass someone with a dog or a stroller as it is now). Developers get whatever they want in this neighborhood— please start setting some precedents that promote the safety and character of our neighborhood. This is another project with no street activation that is going to gobble up another full city block. Please consider something beyond an investment bank’s bottom line. We’re sick of ground floor parking garages and boring facades winning out over the needs of the residents of Sugar House. John Stefanic Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: Judi Short To: Traughber, Lex Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: 10th and Elm Date: Thursday, August 3, 2023 2:13:22 PM Here is another comment on Tenth and Elm Judi Short, First-Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council 801,864.7387 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dayna McKee <dmckee3313@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 1:47 PM Subject: 10th and Elm To: Judi Short <judi.short@gmail.com> Hi Judi, Trying to play catch up again here. I agree with you that the updated zoning ordinance for 10' sidewalks should be adhered to. Additionally, I agree that the landscaping plan is critical to continue to mitigate the effects of climate change and air pollution in our community, particularly with such a high influx on people coming into the neighborhood through all of the high density development that has been and will continue to occur. I would also argue that all future development projects should be making provisions for solar power, water wise landscaping and building materials, etc. We should be building for the future and these developments need to be incorporating best practices for environmentally sustainable housing. Lastly, my initial comments included questions about affordable housing options for this project. I would like to know more about how they intend to address housing disparities in our community with this project. Thank you for your time on this matter. Dayna McKee RE: Comments & Concerns Regarding 10th & Elm Proposed Project Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission and City Council, We strongly oppose this proposed project and ask that the City Council reject the move to rezone the existing zoning of RB for 2157 S. Lincoln Street. At minimum, we ask that the City Council grants more time for the public to gather their opinions and submit to the Council before making a final decision as our seat (District 7) has been empty and recently filled so this will allow for adequate time for all opinions to be heard. Please consider the following: -There are already 4 additional major apartments being finished within a ½ mile of this location -Sugar Alley – Lowe Development -900 E./Sugarmont Project -Alta Terra (Former 24 Hour Fitness) -Former Art Studio Building @ 700 East/Simpson Ave. -With the 4 already being built and then the Former Snelgrove Ice Cream property beginning to start construction soon, in addition to other proposed projects in the area at the old Midas Muffler site and the Wells Fargo Bank site, there is already enough apartments being built to support growth in the area. -This area is already highly trafficked and increasing the amount of apartments in Sugarhouse will only continue to steer it away from its small quaint charm that it’s always offered and is one of the best neighborhoods in Salt Lake City for this aspect. -This area does not have the infrastructure for these additional cars with the proposed changes happening to 21st South resulting in a more pedestrian focused infrastructure and less lanes for cars. -This area is becoming more walker focused and adding around 240+ cars with this proposed apartment will only cause the traffic in the 21st South corridor to become even more challenging. -Additionally, how will the street parking be able to support these additional cars? No matter how many spaces are offered on site, there will always be residents and guests who will park on the street and Elm & surrounding streets (McClelland & 1000 East) are already completely full with street parking as it is. -There is no diversity of offerings for single families - only apartments are being put into Sugarhouse. -There needs to be offerings such as townhomes and single-family homes to help first time home buyers be able to buy equity. -The community aspect is very important to us personally, as we are a young family looking to connect with people in our community and continued apartment building prevents community equity and long-term residents. -We understand the developer plans on keeping the Victorian house on site as part of the project, but the end result will be a beautiful, historic home being overshadowed by an ill-fitting, massive apartment complex which is unfortunately more of the same for this area. Regards, Connor & Candace Brady 960 East Elm Avenue Homeowners Item B6 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: 116 East Edith Avenue Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2022-01160/01161 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2022-01160 & PLNPCM2022-01161 116 E Edith Ave. - R-1-5000 to CC Zoning Map & Master Plan Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Grant Amann, Associate Planner grant.amann@slcgov.com, 801-535-6171 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Deny the ordinance amending the zoning map for the property at 116 E Edith Ave as recommended by Planning Commission BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning map and the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the property located at 116 E Edith Ave which is approximately 5,100 square feet in size. The proposal involves two requests: (1) to amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units per acre) to Community Commercial and (2) to amend the zoning map designation from R-1/5000 (Single Family Residential) to CC (Corridor Commercial) zoning district. The property has acted as ancillary parking for the commercial business located at 1207 S State Street for several decades. The rezone to CC would make the property consistent with the adjacent property that shares the same owner. Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:34 MDT)08/08/2023 08/08/2023 The applicant is requesting the rezone as they are considering alternative options for the business on the property. PUBLIC PROCESS: •Notice of the project and request for comments was sent to the Central City Community Council on March 7th, 2023. •Also on March 7th, 2023, early notification of the project was mailed to property owners/residents within 300 feet of the proposal informing them of the proposal, where to get more information, and who to contact for questions and comments. o No letters or emails were received in opposition to the proposal. •The Planning Commission public hearing was held on May 24th, 2023. Several neighbors spoke during the public hearing in opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about the site regarding safety, and an increase of intensity of use. •The Planning Commission motion recommended denial for the reason that it is inconsistent with Plan Salt Lake. •The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the proposal as requested by the applicant. Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda of May 26, 2021 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes of May 26, 2021 (Click to Access) c)Planning Commission Staff Report of May 26, 2021 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1.Project Chronology 2.Notice of City Council Hearing 3.Original Petition 4.Mailing List 5.Ordinance 1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PLNPCM2022-01160/PLNPCM2022-01161 – 116 E. Edith Ave. Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment February 10, 2023 Petition for the amendments were received by the Salt Lake City March 7, 2023 March 7, 2023 April 21, 2023 May 10, 2023 May 12, 2023 May 24, 2023 Planning Division. Petition PLNPCM2022-01160, -01161 assigned to Grant Amann, Associate Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Early notification announcement of the project to Central City Community Council, and all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. Beginning of 45-day input and comment period. End of 45-day Recognized Community Organization notice period. Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet. Newspaper notice published. Public hearing notice signs posted on the site. Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a negative recommendation to deny the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. 2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2022-01160 and PLNPCM2022- 01161- A request by Ian Kaplan of ADDVirtue, representing the owner of the properties, to rezone the parcels located at approximately 116 E Edith from R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) to CC (Corridor Commercial). The site currently is a vacant lot but serves as ancillary parking to the existing commercial use located at 1207 S State Street. Although the applicant has no current intentions of redeveloping the site, the proposed CC zone would allow for further commercial and multi-family development of the site that is not currently allowed under its current designation. The properties are located in Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315, 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24- Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or via e-mail at grant.amann@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-01160 and PLNPCM2022-01161. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3.PETITION Zoning Amendment Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: $1,142 filing fee, plus $121 per acre (excess of one acre), plus additional public notice fee. Text Amendment: $1,142 filing fee, plus additional public notice fee. Public noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N I N G UPDATED 6/28/22 Ian Kaplan ian@addvirtue.com miqbalsial48@gmail.com 10.29.2022 4 4 1207 S State Street 9897 S 2700 E 4 4 Ikbal Sial 116 E Edith Avenue DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E4684B4-F37F-4FE4-8E62-B882F173E21C Updated 9/14/22 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided by Salt Lake City for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. The following shall be provided if the name of the applicant is different than the name of the property owner: 1.If you are not the fee owner attach a copy of your authorization to pursue this action provided by the fee owner. 2.If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 3.If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership 4.If a Home Owner’s Association is the applicant than the representative/president must attach a notarized letter stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. Be advised that knowingly making a false, written statement to a government entity is a crime under Utah Code Chapter 76-8, Part 5. Salt Lake City will refer for prosecution any knowingly false representations made pertaining to the applicant’s interest in the property that i s the subject of this application. APPLICANT SIGNATURE Name of Applicant: Application Type: Mailing Address: Email: Phone: Signature: Date: FEE TITLE OWNER SIGNATURE Legal Description of Subject Property: Name of Owner: Mailing Address Street Address: Signature: Date: Ian Kaplan Zoning & Masterplan Amendment ian@addvirtue.com 10.29.2022 9897 S 2700 E, Sandy, UT 84092 9897 S 2700 E, Sandy, UT 84092 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E4684B4-F37F-4FE4-8E62-B882F173E21C St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. UPDATED 6/28/22 4 4 4 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3E4684B4-F37F-4FE4-8E62-B882F173E21C Advocacy | Design | Development RE: Application for Zoning Amendment Supplemental Information Prepared By: Date: Ian Kaplan (Owner Representative) October 31st, 2022 ADDvirtue LLC Ian@ADDvirtue.com Owner Information: Iqbal Sial Nazar Enterprises miqbalsial48@gmail.com Project Addresses Parcel Number: Site Area: 116 E Edith Ave 357-047 .12 Acres Existing Zone: R-1-5000 (Single Family Residential) Proposed Zone: CC (Corridor Commercial) Master Plan: Central Community Subject Property: Advocacy | Design | Development Purpose For Amendment: The property located at 1207 S State Street is composed of two contiguous parcels each with separate zoning designations. The smaller of the two parcels, zoned R-1-5000, is a vacant lot and has historically been accessory to the commercial use of the State Street parcel. Due to the adjacency of a commercial structure on two of its four property lines and it’s proximity to State Street, the vacant residential parcel has a low likelihood of being used for new residential construction in the future. The land would be better utilized as Corridor Commercial space that can serve the adjacent neighborhood. Proposed Use: Corridor Commercial Present Zoning Conflicts: 1. The location of the residential parcel with its adjacency to two commercially zoned properties and its historic use as accessory to a commercial property presents a low likelihood of being utilized as single family residential. Central Community Master Plan Findings: The future land use is designated as R-1-5000 on PG.2 of the Central Community Master plan (CCMP). The Community Commercial zone is intended to provide the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods (See PG. 10, CCMP). Additionally, the community input received during the Master Planning phase of this neighborhood notes that residents do not want commercial activities in low density neighborhoods and prefer to keep them in areas already plagued with noise, trash and traffic (See PG 9, CCMP). Due to the adjacency of existing Commercially zoned property on State street, a Zoning Amendment of this parcel would keep in line with the intent of the CC zone, as established in the CCMP, in maintaining larger scale community commercial in zones along arterial roadways. Furthermore, by amending the zoning of the vacant residential lot, any future commercial business development on the property would be required to meet the buffer requirements as established in 21.A.48.080 of the Salt Lake City Municipal Code, which would increase privacy and protection of the adjacent residential neighborhood. Advocacy | Design | Development Plan Salt Lake Findings: The zoning amendment of this residential property adjacent to larger scale commercial property would positively contribute to the goals set forth in Plan Salt Lake by contributing to the following: ● Locating new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. ● Promoting infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR Own _unit OWN_CITY OWN_ STATE OWN_ZIP 1700 INVESTMENTS, LLC 1207 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 1200 STATE PROPERTY LLC 1418 E MICHIGAN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 BING KONG TONG, INC PO BOX 735 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 GARY L PETERSON; KATHRYN A PETERSON (JT) 1220 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LANDEN PROPERTIES, LLC 13 E WANDERWOOD WY SANDY UT 84092 BING KONG TONG, INC PO BOX 735 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 RESCUE MISSION OF SALT LAKE INC PO BOX 1431 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 AXIS T PROPERTIES, LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MARGARET H CLAYTON 116 E KELSEY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 RACHEL E SANDERS 122 E KELSEY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PETER GOODWIN 126 E KELSEY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LAURA KRAMER; MATTHEW PETTIT (JT) 132 E KELSEY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JUDITH M BEESLEY TRUST 04/20/1989 169 N STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 KATHERINE J YOUNG 6908 S HOLLOW MILL DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 CONSUELO R HARRIS; TERESA M HARRIS; BRENNA HARRIS (JT) 146 E KELSEY AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AXIS T PROPERTIES LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SERGIO GOMEZ 115 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 TIA P MARTINEZ 119 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NICOLE A JOHNSTON; RYAN K JOHNSTON (JT) 125 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DAVID SHEARER; STACEY SHEARER (JT) 131 E EDITH AVE # SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 CONRAD NAGEL 135 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 LANCE B SAUNDERS 983 N POINSETTIA DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BRIAN J FIEDLER; JESSICA ROESTENBURG (JT) 145 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JESSICA M REECE 149 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DREW HANSEN 120 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 DAVID A SALTSMAN 142 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 ADEQUATE INVESTMENTS, LLC 40 S SAMARA ST VINEYARD UT 84059 LYNN LOSELI KATOA 156 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 AUTONOMY INC 6036 S LINDEN ST HOLLADAY UT 84121 AUTONOMY INC 6036 S LINDEN ST HOLLADAY UT 84121 ADEQUATE INVESTMENTS, LLC 40 S SAMARA ST VINEYARD UT 84059 DOE MAYERS TRUST 09/27/2019 1057 E BELLE MEADOWS WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 TERRY GORSETH; STACY GORSETH (JT) 136 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 PAUL H WHITE; JEANNENE WHITE (JT) 152 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 WILLISTON SLOULIN FIELD PAD LLC; UFPRP LLC 5670 WILSHIRE BLVD #1250 LOS ANGELES CA 90036 FIRST UTAH BANK 3826 S 2300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 RICK ROSS 126 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 JEFFREY KATZ 130 E EDITH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NAZAR, ENTERPRISES, LLC 1207 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 NAZAR ENTERPRISES, LLC 1207 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 Current Occupant 1190 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1200 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1216 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 85 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1212 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1165 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1169 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 136 E KELSEY AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 140 E KELSEY AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1185 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 131 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 139 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 144 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 146 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 120 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 142 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 146 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 156 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 1297 S STATE ST Salt Lake City UT 84111 Current Occupant 145 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 115 E 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 116 E EDITH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 5. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 116 East Edith Avenue from R-1/5,000 Single- Family Residential District to CC Corridor Commercial District, and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance pertaining to property located at 116 East Edith Avenue (the “Property”) as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, amending the zoning map from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to CC Corridor Commercial District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022- 01160 and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Property to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01161. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 24, 2023 on an application submitted by Ian Kaplan of ADDvirtue, LLC (“Applicant”) to rezone the Property from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to CC Corridor Commercial District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01160 and to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Property to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01161; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) deny said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to CC Corridor Commercial District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Property identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of ___________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending zoning and MP 116 E Edith Ave APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 23, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Affects property located at: 116 East Edith Avenue Tax ID No. 16-07-357-047-0000 LOT 14, BLOCK 1, WALKER PLACE PLAT A. ALSO BEG SW COR OF SD LOT 14, BLOCK 1, WALKER PLACE PLAT A; N 89^56'40" E 42.36 FT; S 0^01'52" W 9.54 FT; N 89^50'11" W 42.36 FT; N 0^01'52"E 9.38 FT TO BEG. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: 116 East Edith Avenue Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2022-01160/01161 BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 3, 2023 briefing the Council confirmed there is not a home on the subject property and no housing loss mitigation is required. The petitioner stated that although the City recognizes the property is zoned residential, Salt Lake County records indicate that it is commercial and is charging taxes as such. Staff note: taxes are assessed based on the use of the property and not the underlying zoning. The petitioner would like to consolidate the parcel with his abutting parcel at 1207 South State Street. The Council asked Planning staff about use of the property for rental truck parking. That is happening on the 1207 South State Street property and would be allowed on the subject property if the rezone request is approved by the Council. In response to nearby resident concerns about increased truck traffic on Edith Avenue, the petitioner committed to keeping an existing blocked driveway onto Edith Avenue closed so vehicles would be required to enter or exit on State Street. The following information was provided for the September 5, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for property at 116 East Edith Avenue (approximately 1200 South) in City Council District Five from its current R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning designation to CC (Corridor Commercial). In addition, the proposal calls for amending the Central Community Master Plan future land use map from the current “Low-Density Residential” designation to “Community Commercial.” Current R-1/5,000 and CC zoning allow buildings up to 28 feet Item Schedule: Briefing: October 3, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 and 30 feet respectively. (An additional 15 feet of height (45 feet total) can be approved in the CC zoning district through the design review process.) The 0.12-acre parcel is used as parking for the adjacent parcel at 1207 South State Street where a magazine and smoke shop is located. The property reportedly has also been used as U-Haul storage. Both parcels are under the same ownership. Planning staff referenced a 1950 Sanborn map that indicates a single-family residence was located at 116 East Edith Avenue. There is no record of a building permit since 1979, so Planning estimates the home was demolished sometime between 1950 and 1979. Planning staff believes the current commercial use has existed since at least 1979. Edith Avenue properties between the subject property and 200 East are zoned R-1/5,000 and properties fronting State Street and 1300 South are zoned CC as shown in the zoning map below. Amending the zoning map and master plan future land use map would allow the current use to be a conforming use, and potentially combine 1207 South State Street and 116 East Edith Avenue into one parcel, giving potential to redevelop the site. It is worth noting that to date no concept plans have been submitted to the City. Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. As outlined in Key Consideration 1 below, Planning staff’s opinion was that the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments are consistent with adopted City plans and recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. However, at its May 24, 2023 meeting the Commission voted unanimously to forward negative recommendations to the Council on both the zoning map and future land use map amendments. Commissioners felt expanding auto centric use into a residential neighborhood is inconsistent with Plan Salt Lake. Page | 3 Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to discuss whether aligning the zoning with current use of the property, and redevelopment potential outweighs impacts to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. 2. The Corridor Commercial zone is designed to be adjacent and compatible with residential neighborhoods, however, the Council may wish to consider whether another zone could be considered to resolve the non-conforming use, open opportunities for future plans, and be supportive of the residential neighborhood. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City, nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review such plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 5-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Relevant Adopted Master Plan Documents Central Community Master Plan (2005) The subject property is within the Central Community Master Plan area, and the future land use map designates the property as low density residential. The adjacent property at 1207 South State Street is designated Corridor Commercial. Planning staff pointed to a section of the master plan that addresses “preventing zoning changes for commercial land use encroachment into residential neighborhoods.” Commercial land use encroachment occurs when new businesses are established on formerly residential properties and when existing neighborhood businesses appropriate contiguous residential properties. Both types of expanding commercial development often cause the demolition of residential structures for commercial land use. This has a severe impact on the character, livability, and stability of the existing residential neighborhood. Planning noted that demolition of an existing building would be discouraged but reiterated that the building on the subject property was demolished prior to 1980. Use of the property is believed to have been commercial since then, and Planning staff stated the proposal would allow commercial use on the property without demolishing a building. It would also allow continued use of the site which is already impacting the community as a commercial use. Planning staff included the following from the master plan: The location of neighborhood businesses within residential areas shortens travel times and makes it possible to walk, cycle, or take the bus rather than using the automobile, thus benefiting the community through improved air quality and reduced congestion on the City’s streets. and Page | 4 …non-conforming land uses, such as a commercial business on residentially zoned property, can serve the local community. In some cases, these businesses may be 20 to 50 years old and have provided convenient service to the neighborhood. These types of businesses also add character and opportunities for social exchanges in the neighborhood. Plan Salt Lake (2015) Planning staff felt the proposal aligns with the Neighborhoods, and Growth guiding principles. They outlined that the proposal supports the Neighborhoods principle because it does not change the expectation of commercial use for the property, and provides neighborhood services and amenities. Regarding support of the Growth guiding principle, Planning referenced that the proposal includes a mix of land uses in the neighborhood, includes potential to redevelop the property, and any new development would be in an area with existing infrastructure. As noted above, the Planning Commission felt the proposal is inconsistent with Plan Salt Lake and forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council. Consideration 2 – Comparison of R-1/5,000 and Corridor Commercial Zones Planning staff found the current R-1/5,000 single-family zoning is appropriate for residential uses along Edith Avenue, and the proposed Corridor Commercial zone is congruent with existing properties on State Street north and south of the subject property. R-1/5,000 zoning limits development on the 116 East Edith Avenue property to a single-family dwelling, while CC zoning would allow for more intense uses such as a bar/tavern/brewpub, veterinary office, convenience store/gas station, check cashing payday loan business, medical clinic, multi-family dwelling, and mixed-use development, among others. (For a more comprehensive list of permitted and conditional uses, please see Attachment D (pages 18-20) of the Planning Commission staff report.) Planning also noted the current use of 116 East Edith Avenue as off-site U-Haul parking was created through City processes, and is considered a legal, non-conforming use. Corridor Commercial zoning would allow this as a permitted use. If rezoned to CC zoning the subject parcel would not conform to lot width standards for the zone. However, if the parcel and adjacent parcel at 1207 South State Street were combined the larger lot would conform to lot width standards. Rezoning the subject parcel to Corridor Commercial would allow more intense uses than the existing R- 1/5,000 zoning. If the property is redeveloped or the current building at 1207 South State Street were to be expanded under the proposed zoning, greater height would be allowed and there would be fewer setbacks. However, a landscaped buffer would be required on the east property line adjacent to the single-family residential. ZONING COMPARISON The following table compares current and proposed zoning districts. R-1/5,000 (current)CC (proposed) Maximum Building Height 28 feet to the ridge of the roof or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 20 feet to the top of a flat roof 30 feet (An additional 15 feet of building height can be approved through the design review process.) Page | 5 Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Average of block face or 20 feet. Corner side yard: 10 feet 15 feet Interior Side Yard Setback 4 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other. None required Rear Setback 25% of lot depth or 20 feet, whichever is less. 10 feet Upper-Level Step Back None None Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 75 feet Minimum Lot Size Single-family detached: 5,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Open Space 60% (40% maximum building coverage) None other than required yard areas. Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 21-24) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Planning’s Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Proposal is consistent with Plan Salt Lake and the Central Community Master Plan and is accordance with their goals, standards, and policies. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties The proposed CC zone will impose different development regulations that the R-1/5,000 district but as the property has been historically utilized as a commercial use the impacts would be negligible. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Does not conflict with any overlays that affect the property. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but additional comments will be provided if the property is redeveloped. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Page | 6 • February 10, 2023 – Petition submitted. • March 7, 2023 – o Petition assigned to staff. o Early notification sent to Central City Community Council and residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site. o Beginning of 45-day comment period. • April 21, 2023 - The 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. • May 10, 2023 – Planning Commission public hearing notice sign posted on the property. • May 12, 2023 - Public hearing notice mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Newspaper notice published. • May 24, 2023 - Planning Commission public hearing and negative recommendation. • June 23, 2023-Draft ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • July 7, 2023-Planning received draft ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • August 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. Item B7 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: 1720 and 1734 South West Temple Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00106/00380 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: 1720 and 1734 South West Temple Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00106/00380 BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 10, 2023 briefing a question was raised about proposed area zoning called for in the upcoming South Ballpark area plan. Council staff checked with Planning and learned it is too early to know what specific recommendations will be. Draft scenarios provided by the consultant on this plan suggest two to four story buildings may be proposed for public input. Planning staff noted that West Temple has historically been used as a dividing line for density. Density increases moving west toward the Trax line, and properties to the east are generally lower density. Planning also reminded the Council of the variety of zoning designations in this area. The map below showing the properties downzoned in 2016 was also discussed. Of the 155 properties downzoned, eight are south of 1700 South. The petitioner noted that downzoned properties north of 1700 South are generally smaller than the subject parcels. The following information was provided for the October 10, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 1720 and 1734 South West Temple (0.24 acres each) from their current R-1/5,000 (Single-family Residential) zoning, to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use). In addition, the proposal calls for amending the Central Community Master Plan future land use designations from Low-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential. The proposed amendments would allow the property owner to potentially construct a medium-density Item Schedule: Briefing: October 10, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 residential development on the properties like a development immediately adjacent to the north, though no development plans have been submitted. A single-family home constructed in 1931 is on the 1720 South property. A duplex built in 1906 and remodeled in the early 2000s is at 1734 South. Both properties are market rate rental units. The parcels have frontage on West Temple and are near 1700 South, both of which are collector streets. Single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and multi-family buildings are in the vicinity, with bars, restaurants, a church and commercial uses within a few blocks. Jefferson Circle Park is adjacent to the west of the subject parcels. Planning staff noted that given the subject properties’ combined size of approximately ½ acre, and a minimum of 20% open space, limited buildable area will keep a potential building’s scale compatible with adjacent development. Residential use parking and height will be restricted due to fire codes and zoning ordinance requirements. Commercial uses involving alcohol would be prohibited because of the abutting park to the west. Area zoning is a mix of R-1/5,000, R-MU-45, CG (General Commercial), CB (Community Business), RMF- 35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential/Office) and R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential) as shown in the zoning map below. Area zoning map with subject parcels outlined in red. Page | 3 It is important to note that an ordinance was adopted in 2016 that downzoned 155 properties in an area bordered by 1300 South, Main Street, 2100 South, and 200 West from RMF-35 to R-1/5,000. The properties impacted by the rezone are not all adjacent to each other. The properties being considered by the Council are two of eight located on West Temple south of 1700 South that were rezoned in 2016 as shown below. Image showing properties downzoned in 2016. Courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. Page | 4 The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal during its July 26, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which seven people spoke, six of whom were opposed to the proposal. Concerns cited include no development proposal, parking issues, the 2016 downzone was intended to maintain the core of neighborhood homes. The person who spoke in support noted the properties are on and near collector streets, are close to transit, and a need for moderate density in the area. During their discussion, Commissioners clarified that the subject parcels are not included in the Ballpark Station Area Plan. (Staff note: The parcels are within the draft 300 West Corridor and Central Pointe Plan area currently being drafted. That plan is not far enough along to provide specific recommendations for the subject parcels.) Some Commissioners expressed a desire to preserve the character of the street, felt the development and use potential are not appropriate for the parcels, and the small setbacks are an issue. Planning staff’s opinion was that the proposed zoning map and future land use map amendments met factors to consider in City Code and recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Council with a condition that the petitioner enter a development agreement with the City for replacement of the three dwelling units. The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the Council for both the zoning map and future land use map amendments. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they plan to include any affordable housing in potential future projects on the subject sites. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units? 2. The Council may wish to discuss how the forthcoming Affordable Housing incentives overlay proposal could be utilized to guarantee affordability is included in future projects on this property. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. No site plan has been submitted to the City, nor is it within the scope of the Council’s role to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 6-8 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Adopted City Plan Considerations Planning reviewed how the proposal aligns with the Central Community Master Plan, Plan Salt Lake, and Housing SLC 2023-2027. Central Community Master Plan The subject parcels are within the Central Community Master Plan area and is shown on the published future land use map for this plan as Medium-Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units/acre). The map is Page | 5 inaccurate as the 2016 downzone discussed above designates the properties as Low-Density Residential (1- 15 dwelling units/acre). The map was published in 2005, well before the parcels were downzoned. In the Planning Commission staff report Planning staff stated: The subject properties are no longer compatible with the surrounding uses by remaining labeled “low-density residential” among “medium-residential/mixed-use” and “residential/office mixed- use” on the future land use map. Most of the development and the zoning has been designated for higher densities. Therefore, the master plan should be amended to show these two properties as “medium-density residential” to allow for future multi-family and/or mixed-use development potential and to make the subject properties more compatible with the uses around them. Plan Salt Lake Planning staff cited the city’s need for housing in Plan Salt Lake which calls for “access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.” Two key components in the initiative are: •Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income, and •Increase the number of medium density housing types and options. Housing SLC 2023-2027 It is Planning staff’s option that amending the master plan to designate the subject properties as medium- density residential aligns with the main objective in Housing SLC to “make progress toward closing the housing gap of 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing and increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability.” Consideration 2 – Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Planning staff noted the low-density residential neighborhood that was part of the larger area. They also acknowledged changes over the past decade including townhomes, multi-family developments, and commercial uses. The tallest buildings in the immediate area include the townhome development adjacent to the subject parcels to the north, and a senior resident apartment building. Consideration 3 – R-MU-45 Zoning vs R-1/5,000 Zoning Development Potential R-MU-45 development potential is very different than the current R-1/5,000 zoning. Building setbacks in R-MU-45 are much less than R-1/5,000, and there would be more dwelling units allowed if the proposal is adopted. R-MU-45 zoning allows for buildings up to 45 feet tall, but as noted above the maximum building height on the subject parcels would likely be lower. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the parcels’ size along with landscaping and on-site parking requirements would allow a building similar in height to the adjacent townhome development. ZONING COMPARISON Attachment C (pages 15-16) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a comparison of existing R- 1/5,000 and proposed R-MU-45 zoning. It is replicated here for convenience. Regulation Existing Zoning (R-1/5,000)Proposed Zoning (R-MU-45) Lot Area/Width 5,000 square feet- lot size 50 feet -lot width 5,000 square feet for new lots. No minimum for existing lots. Page | 6 50 feet -lot width Setbacks 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Corner lots: Four feet (4'). b. Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 4. Rear Yard: Twenty-five percent (25%) of the lot depth, or twenty feet (20'), whichever is less. 3. Nonresidential, Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Developments: a. Front Yard: Minimum five feet (5’). Maximum fifteen feet (15’). b. Corner Side Yard: Minimum five feet (5’). Maximum fifteen feet (15’). c. Interior Side Yard: No setback is required unless an interior side yard abuts a Single- or Two-Family Residential District. When a setback is required, a minimum ten-foot (10') setback must be provided, and the minimum side yard setback shall be increased one foot (1') for every one foot (1') increase in height above thirty feet (30'). Buildings may be stepped so taller portions of a building are farther away from the side property line. The horizontal measurement of the step shall be equal to the vertical measurement of the taller portion of the building. d. Rear Yard: Twenty-five percent (25%) of lot depth but need not exceed thirty feet (30'). Parking Two parking spaces per dwelling unit Min: Studio and 1+ bedrooms: 1 space per DU Max: All Contexts: Studio & 1 Bedroom: 2 spaces per DU 2+ bedrooms: 3 spaces per DU Building Height 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a. Twenty-eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet (20'). Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections E1, E2, E3 and E4 of this section. Buildings taller than forty-five feet (45'), up to a maximum of fifty-five feet (55'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title) and provided that the proposed height is supported by the applicable master plan. 1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Twenty feet (20'). Page | 7 Coverage/Open space The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot. Minimum Open Space Area: For residential uses and mixed uses containing residential uses, not less than twenty percent (20%) of the lot area shall be maintained as an open space area. This open space area may take the form of landscaped yards or plazas and courtyards, subject to site plan review approval. Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 31-33) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies if multi-family development is constructed. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Generally complies. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Some public facilities and services may need to be upgraded if a more intense use is permitted in the R-MU-45 zone. City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed objections to the proposal, but additional comments will be provided if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • February 13, 2023 – Petition for the zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • March 3, 2023 – Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner. • March 17, 2023 – Information about the proposal sent to the Ballpark Community Council Chair. • March 20, 2023 – Early notification announcement sent to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site. • May 10, 2023 – It was determined that a petition for a master plan amendment would be required to amend the Central Community Master Plan future land use map from low-density residential to Page | 8 medium-density residential. • May 17, 2023 – Master plan amendment petition received by Planning Division. • May 19, 2023 – Master plan amendment petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner. • July 17, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted on property. • July 21, 2023 – Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. • July 26, 2023 – Petitions reviewed by the Planning Commission and a public hearing was held. The Commission votes 5-2 to forward negative recommendations to the City Council for the zoning map and future land use map amendments. • July 31, 2023 – Draft ordinance sent to the City Attorney’s Office. • August 3, 2023 – Signed ordinance sent to Planning Division. • September 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: _________________ ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 6, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petitions PLNPCM2023-00106 & PLNPCM2023-00380 Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment 1720 S. & 1734 S. West Temple St. STAFF CONTACT: Diana Martinez, Senior Planner (801) 535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the recommendations of the Planning Commission to deny the petitions for a zoning map amendment and a master plan amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Larsen Sequist requests to amend the zoning map for the properties at approximately 1720 S. and 1734 S. West Temple St. (15-13-427-006-0000 and 15- 13-427-007-0000). The proposal would rezone the subject properties from R-1-5,000 (Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use), as well as to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan from “Low-Density Residential” to “Medium- Density Residential”. The subject properties are both 0.24 acres (10,454 square feet each), a total of approximately 0.48 acres. No development plans were submitted with this application. The applicant, who is the current owner of the subject properties, is requesting that the zoning be changed to R-MU-45, a medium-density residential zone. For this zone change to be considered, rachel otto (Sep 8, 2023 09:13 MDT)09/08/2023 09/08/2023 a Master Plan Amendment application must also be considered to change the future land use designation from low- to medium-density residential. The subject properties front along West Temple Street just south of 1700 South. Both 1700 South and West Temple are collector roads. This area is a mixed-use area, with many townhomes, duplexes, multi-family structures in the immediate vicinity, and also nearby commercial and residential/office buildings. On August 26th, 2016, an ordinance was adopted (Ordinance 14 of 2016) that changed the zoning for 155 individual properties located in an area bounded by 1300 South and 2100 South Streets and Main and 200 West Streets. These properties were not all adjacent properties. The zoning for these properties was changed from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) to R-1-5,000 (Single-Family Residential). The ordinance also amended the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map by identifying these 155 properties from “Medium Density Residential” to “Low-Density Residential”. The applicant does not have an intended use proposal for the property. However, in discussions with the applicant, he may consider a medium-density residential development like the existing development to the north. The application request for zoning map amendment must comply with the standards of review listed in the Zoning Ordinance as well as the goals of the adopted master plans or request to amend the master plan, as the applicant did make an application for. Planning Staff believed that those standards and goals were met and had recommended approval of these petitions to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC PROCESS: ● Early Notification – o Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on March 20, 2023. o Notification of the proposal was sent to the Ballpark Community Council on March 17, 2023. No comment was received from the Ballpark Community Council prior to the meeting. ● Planning Commission Meeting – On July 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed master plan amendment. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for decision. The findings for recommending denial were: 1. It’s inappropriate without a development plan. 2. It does not conform to the Central City Master Plan. 3. It is not compatible with the neighboring uses. In addition, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the zoning map amendment petition. The finding for recommending denial was: • It does not conform to the Central City Master Plan. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of July 26, 2023 (Click here) b) PC Minutes of July 26, 2023 (Click here) c) PC Staff Report of July 26, 2023 (Click here) d) PC Meeting of July 26, 2023 Time 1:56:05 to 2:31:04 (Click here) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00106 – Zoning Map Amendment Request PLNPCM2023-00380- Master Plan Amendment Request approximately 1720 S. and 1734 S. West Temple St. February 13, 2023 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. March 3, 2023 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. March 17, 2023 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Ballpark Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. March 20, 203 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. May 4, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. May 10, 2023 It was determined that a petition for a Master Plan Amendment would be required to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Central City Master Plan from “low-density residential” to “medium-density residential”. May 17, 2023 Petition for the master plan amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. May 19, 2023 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. July 17, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. July 21, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. July 21, 2023 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing July 26, 2023. By a vote of 5 - 2 , the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to City Council for the proposed Zoning Map Amendment and the Master Plan Amendment. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00106 – Larsen Sequist requests to amend the zoning map for the properties at approximately 1720 S. and 1734 S. West Temple St. (15-13-427-006-0000 and 15-13-427-007-0000). The proposal would rezone the subject properties from R-1-5,000 (Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use), as well as to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan from “Low- Density Residential” to “Medium-Density Residential”. The subject properties are both 0.24 acres (10,454 square feet each), a total of approximately 0.48 acres. No development plans were submitted with this application. The following two petitions are associated with this request: A. Master Plan Amendment – The associated future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan currently designates the subject properties as “Low-Density Residential”. The request is to amend the designation to “Medium-Density Residential”. Case Number PLNPCM2023-00380 B. Zoning Map Amendment- The subject properties are currently zoned R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential). The request is to amend the zone to R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed Use). Case Number PLNPCM2023-00106 As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00106 or PLNPCM2023-00380. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST OWN FULL NAME OWN ADDR own unit OWN CITY OWN STATE OWN ZIP SUSANNE GUSTIN FURGIS; GEORGE E FURGIS (JT)1181 E CHANDLER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 LESLEY ULIBARRI 124 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 129 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT SYDNEE SCARBOROUGH; MAUREEN O'DONNELL (JT)134-136 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 NATOSHA WASHINGTON 1628 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GEORGE S RUSTER 1629 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JEREMY JOHN NEFF 163 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MAXINE POTTER 1631 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JAMES M WILLARD 1634 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JOEL G ARMENDARIZ 1637 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CINDY KHA 1638 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1639 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1640 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1646 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1646 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1689 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1709 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 1 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 21 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 17 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1710 S WEST TEMPLE ST 15 Salt Lake City 84115 UT ANNE KENDALL GOTTWALT 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MARGARET SCHAUFLER 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GREGORY M HARRIS; MIGUEL E GARCIA 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CATHERINE MARY CHRISTOPHER; CHIBUEZE DEREK UCHENDU (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ALEXANDRA MARKS; MARIE MARKS (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 6 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1710 SOUTH, A SERIES OF ILLAHEE, LLC 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 7 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ALEXA NORLIN; KEVIN BOLGER (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 8 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JAMES B CURRAN; ROBERT E TOWNE (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST #9 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 DAVID BENJAMIN DICKSHINSKI; JESSICA BAZZELLE (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 10 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ROBERT WILLIAM NAYLOR 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 11 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 BRYCE NELSON; ERIC ADAMS (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 23 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SHANE M STEPHENSON; HANNAH M STEPHENSON (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 22 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ANDREW E MARR; CHLOE A RUEBECK MARR (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 20 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JENNIFER MCCALLUM 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 19 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 FRANK FELDMAN; DAVID S RABIGER (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 18 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 OLIVIA J AKERLEY 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST # 16 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TYSON HATCH 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST SUITE 500 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 DAVID JOSEPH JANGRO 1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 13 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JOHN MCKENZIE-CARTER; MARINA QUEVEDO (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 14 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SEAN HOUSEHOLDER; TRACI RESTON-HOUSEHOLDER (JT)1710 S WESTTEMPLE ST 12 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1712 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1715 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1717 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1719 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT JESSICA ARMSTRONG 1720 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JAVIER H ALEGRE-ALCAYAGA 1722 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1723 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT JUDITH WILLIAMS; ANDREW KITER 1723 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1726 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT ALLISON K COFFELT; BRITT HULTGREN (JT)1728 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1729 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1733 S JEFFERSON ST NFF1 Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1734 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1735 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT MEGAN RADVANSKY 1738 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CHRISTIAN L CASE 1741 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HUGH VANN 1742 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MARY L COX 1746 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1748 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1750 S JEFFERSON CIR NORTH Salt Lake City 84115 UT FRANCISCO AVILA-CRUZ; PAULA B AVILA (JT)1751 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ALEXANDRA H GIBSON 1754 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CODY C CARVER 1755 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1758 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT WILLIAM L CARR; WENDY L T CARR (JT)1759 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 DIANE VAN ROOSENDAAL; STEPHANIE VAN ROOSENDAAL (JT)1760 S RICHARDS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1760 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT WILLIAM L CARR; WENDY T CARR (JT)1767 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1790 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT YING-TING LIN 336 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 AXIST PROPERTIES LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ROY SISTO ALIRES & ARLENE W ALIRES TRUST 09/16/2020 3899 S BURNINGHAM DR WEST VALLEY UT 84119 Current Occupant 58 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 59 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT JACK H KOLKMAN 64 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 GRANT J NORTON; COLLEEN C NORTON (JT)657 WINDSOR CT ALPINE UT 84004 Current Occupant 67 W 1700 S Salt Lake City 84115 UT 17TH TOWNHOMES, LLC 70 NORTH MAIN STREET #106 BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 KENNETH OWEN NAIL 736 S 300 E UNIT 5E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ROBERT J RILEY; GARY AYTON (JT)74 W QUAYLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1709 SOUTH, A SERIES OF UNSTOPPABLE REAL ESTATE, LLC 7901 S 3200 W # 443 WEST JORDAN UT 84088 FAMILY PROMISE-SALT LAKE 814 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 COLE SQUARED L.L.C.851 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 879 N LITTLE VALLEY RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 1734 S WEST TEMPLE L.L.C.909 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 Diana Martinez, Principal Planner 451 S. State St. / P.O. Box 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480 Larsen Sequist 909 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 5. ORDINANCE 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of properties located at 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District, and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00106 and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to those properties from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00380. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on July 26, 2023, on a petition submitted by Larsen Sequist (“Petitioner”) to rezone two parcels located at 1720 South West Temple Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-427-006-0000) and 1734 South West Temple Street (Tax ID No. 15-13-427-007-0000) (collectively, the “Properties”) from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District, and a petition to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Properties from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; WHEREAS, at its July 26, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a negative recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) on the petitions; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map within the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Propertes identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of ___________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 4 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Properties to be Rezoned: 1720 South West Temple Street Tax ID number: 15-13-427-006-0000 COM 4.35 RDS N FR SE COR LOT 12 BLK 7 5 AC PLAT A BIG FIELD SUR W 9 RDS N 4.35 RDS E 9 RDS S 4.35 RDS TO BEG 8923-0487 9283-9367 09283-9369 11181-1070 and 1734 South West Temple Street Tax ID number: 15-13-427-007-0000 COM AT SE COR OF LOT 12 BLK 7 5 AC PLAT A B F SUR W 9 RDS N 4.35 RDS E 9 RDS S 4.35 RDS TO BEG 5820-2802 6497-0799 6548-1936 6606-0482,0489,0491 6781-0714 7597- 0552 8353-6519 8387-2544 8409-4333 8413-4101 8422-2142 8648-4144 8743-4086 8743-4107 9535-711 10377-4386 10753-9793 10754-8050 Item B8 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: 1518 South 300 West Alley Vacation PLNPCM2023-000408 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: 1518 South 300 West Alley Vacation PLNPCM2023-000408 BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 17, 2023 briefing, Council Members discussed the proposed walkway through a future development on the site. Adding vehicular access to the walkway was mentioned to help alleviate difficulties driving in this area due to 400 West being closed, and a nearby abandoned rail line. A Council Member stated their preference for keeping the walkway as proposed for pedestrians and bicycles only and remarked that not allowing vehicles to access the walkway would make the area quieter for residents. The petitioner felt strongly that pedestrian access better meets the City’s midblock walkway goals than adding vehicular access to the walkway. Council Members also discussed street activation. A desire was expressed for the majority of the 300 West façade’s ground floor to be retail and restaurant space with no parking access on that street. Apartment and parking access, lobbies, and amenities would be provided on Andrew and Van Buren Avenues. After the briefing, the petitioner followed up with staff indicating that including additional width to allow vehicular access would make it unfeasible to develop the project. Their preference is to keep the proposal as is with an approximately 20-foot-wide walkway through the development. A second option would provide vehicle access for the public through the western building’s parking garage between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues from 7 am to 8 pm seven days a week. This would result in the loss of some amenity space and parking. The proposal would maintain this access until a potential future development connects Andrew and Van Buren Avenues via a road. The image below shows the proposed vehicle access through the parking garage. Item Schedule: Briefing: October 17, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 The following information was provided for the October 17, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate two City-owned alleys near the above address, west of 300 West and between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues in Council District Five as shown in the image below provided by the Planning Division. One alley (referred to from this point as “Alley A”) runs north/south between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues. It is approximately 16.5 feet wide and 149 feet long. The other alley (referred to from this point as “Alley B”) runs east/west between 300 West and the east property line of 352 West Van Buren Avenue. It is approximately 16.5 feet wide and 300 feet long. The petitioner owns all seven parcels that abut the subject alleys. Alley B previously continued to 400 West before that street and a portion of the alley were vacated in 1974. Another segment of the alley was closed in 1997, resulting in the current alley configuration. Alley A is paved and appears to be used as parking for a towing yard and auto body shop at 325 West Andrew Avenue. It is fenced off and obstructs access to the western portion of Alley B. Alley B is gravel and passable to the point where it intersects with Alley A. West of the alley intersection, Alley B Page | 3 is fenced off, restricting public access. The portion of Alley B west of the fence has deteriorated pavement, making it no longer passable. The petitioner proposes demolition of buildings abutting the subject alleys and incorporating the alley property into a multi-family development. That potential development is not part of the alley vacation petition before the Council and will not come to the Council as there is not a request to rezone the property. Applications for design review and planned development have been submitted to the Planning Division and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the future. Image showing abutting parcels owned by the petitioner’s client outlined in yellow. Area zoning is CG (General Commercial). Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division The Planning Commission reviewed this petition during its August 23, 2o23 meeting and held a public hearing at which the petitioner was the only person who spoke. The Commission followed Planning staff’s recommendation and voted 7-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council for the proposed alley vacations, with the following conditions: •The property owner enters into a development agreement with the City that requires creation of a public access midblock walkway between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues where the midblock walkway is between buildings on both the east and west sides that are in common ownership. •No portion of the alleys shall purport to be conveyed until at least 60 days after a final decision by the City Council. During City department and division review of the alley vacation petition, no responding department or division objected to the proposed alley vacation. Public Utilities noted that there is a water meter on 300 West near Alley B, and it must remain in the public right-of-way. Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTION Page | 4 1. Does the Council support the Planning Commission’s recommended conditions relating to the mid- block walkway for the alley closures? ADDITONAL INFORMATION Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 6-7 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. Quiet Title Claim The alleys proposed to be vacated were the subject of a 2022 quiet title lawsuit to confirm ownership of the alley property. A judgement granted title to the alley property to the applicant, but the City was not named or served as part of the lawsuit, so the judgement is not binding on the City. The judgement was recorded by Salt Lake County and the alley property was mistakenly identified by the County as belonging to the applicant. To clarify that the alley property is still owned by Salt Lake City, a notice of public alleys (found in Attachment D (pages 27-30 of the Planning Commission staff report)) was required of the applicant. It is being held in escrow by the City Attorney’s Office pending the City Council’s decision on the proposed alley vacation request. Key Considerations Planning staff identified five key considerations connected to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for reference. Please see pages 5-6 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues. Consideration 1: Property Owner Consent Section 14.52.030.A.1 Salt Lake City Code requires a minimum of 75% of abutting property owners sign a petition to vacate a City owned alley. As noted above, all seven abutting parcels are owned by the petitioner’s client. Consideration 2: Policy Considerations Planning staff found the fenced off portion of Alley B satisfies policy consideration C-Urban Design as outlined in Section 14.52.020 Salt Lake City Code. Alley A and the eastern portion of Alley B could satisfy policy consideration B-Public Safety, based on comments received from the Police Department and Sustainability, though the petitioner did not raise this as a concern. Consideration 3: Master Plan Considerations Planning staff noted that the Central Community Master Plan does not address alley vacations within the People’s Freeway area where the alleys are located. However, the master plan and Plan Salt Lake both recommend midblock walkways for pedestrian connections. It is Planning staff’s opinion that a midblock private right-of-way connecting Andrew and Van Buren Avenues could break up the block. They also suggested that Alley A property could be vacated in exchange for this midblock connection. Consideration 4: Nature of the Alley As discussed above, Planning staff found that Alley A is fenced off and used as parking for an adjacent business, so not accessible to the public. Alley B is mostly gravel, and partially accessible to the public. Page | 5 Beyond the fence, it is used for outdoor storage and parking. The surface is deteriorated and likely not passable. That section is not currently publicly accessible. Consideration 5: Future Public Use of the Alley Alley vacation proposals generally include considering potential beneficial future uses of the alley for trails, ADU or garage access, and to retain access for utilities and services. If the gate blocking Alley A was removed and vehicles and other items stored there were cleared out, this alley could provide access from Andrew Avenue to the interior of the block, but it does not extend through to Van Buren Avenue. An option to consider is a development agreement requiring replacing the alley with a private right-of-way that provides a mid-block connection between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues. This would break up the large block and provide access beyond what the alley could. Planning staff determined preserving Alley B would not implement good urban design. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E (pages 35-39 of the Planning Commission staff report) is an analysis of factors City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Sections 14.52.020/.030.B Salt Lake City Code). In addition to the information above, other factors are summarized below. 14.52.020 - The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A - Lack of Use- The City’s legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. B - Public Safety- The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. C - Urban Design- The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. D - Community Purpose- The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Planning staff found the requested Alley A vacation complies with policy considerations C-Urban Design, with a condition that a mid-block connection between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues is constructed. Planning found the requested Alley B vacation also complies with policy consideration C-Urban Design. 14.52.030.B - A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council should include an analysis of the following factors: Factor Planning Staff Finding The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant City Departments and Divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Complies The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Alley A: Complies, with conditions discussed above. Alley B: Complies Page | 6 The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Complies The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Complies The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; Alley A: Complies, with conditions discussed above. Alley B: Complies No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Complies The petition furthers the City’s preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Complies The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Complies PUBLIC PROCESS May 26, 2023 - Petition received by Planning Division. May 31, 2023 – Petition assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner. June 9, 2023 - Planning staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. June 14, 2023 - Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Ballpark Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. July 31, 2023 - The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. No formal comments have been submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. August 9, 2023 - Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. August 13, 2023 - Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. Page | 7 August 23, 2023 - Planning Commission review and public hearing. The Commission voted 7-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed alley vacations, with conditions. August 24, 2023 - Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office. September 14, 2023 - Signed ordinance sent to Planning Division from Attorney’s Office. October 9, 2023 - Transmittal received in City Council Office The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; Page | 8 4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and 5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. Page | 9 B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. UP 1 A.300 3 A.300 2 A.300 STAIRELEV STAIR ELEV LO A D I N G STAIR STAIR STAIR RESTAURANT ANDREW AVE VAN BUREN AVE 3 0 0 W STAIR 779 SF R -1 BED 1,046 SF R -2 BED 36 ' - 1 0 " 32 ' - 1 0 " 38 ' - 1 1 " 21 ' - 1 " 36 ' - 0 " 32 ' - 2 " 1 6 ' - 7 " RETAIL RETAIL ENTRY GYM 1,053 SF R -2 BED 846 SF R -1 BED 846 SF R -1 BED 846 SF R -1 BED 846 SF R -1 BED 973 SF R -2 BED 712 SF R -1 BED 800 SF R -1 BED 800 SF R -1 BED 800 SF R -1 BED 810 SF R -1 BED 779 SF R -1 BED 779 SF R -1 BED 779 SF R -1 BED 779 SF R -1 BED 780 SF R -1 BED 571 SF R -0 BED 449 SF R -0 BED AMENITIES ENTRY LOBBY TRASH 648 SF R -1 BED 632 SF R -1 BED 632 SF R -1 BED 632 SF R -1 BED 636 SF R -1 BED ENTRY LOBBY BIKE STORAGE STAIR ELEVELEV ELEV 286' - 8" 27 ' - 6 " 33 ' - 1 1 " 14 ' - 7 " 48 ' - 0 " 55 ' - 5 " 33 ' - 8 " FRONT YARD SETBACK 2' - 0" FR O N T Y A R D S E T B A C K 3' - 0 " FR O N T Y A R D S E T B A C K 2' - 4 " 26' - 0"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 8"15' - 10"28' - 6"19' - 0"39' - 0" 21 3 ' - 0 " 37' - 11"28' - 5"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"24' - 8"25' - 4"38' - 8" 162' - 5"20' - 10" 21 4 ' - 4 " 15' - 8"43' - 5"80' - 0"23' - 4" 41' - 9"73' - 3"23' - 4"24' - 1"REAR YARD SETBACK 5' - 0" OFFICE BIKE STORAGE SHEET NAME: DI'VELEPT DESIGN LLC C 2020 4 5 4 N 6 0 0 W, SLC, UT 84116 e: h o w d y @ d i v e l e p t . c o m p: 8 0 1 - 6 8 0 - 4 4 8 5 w: w w w . d i v e l e p t . c o m PROJECT ADDRESS: OWNER: SHEET SCALE: PUBLISH DATE: PHASE: A.O.R.: ARCH PROJECT #: PROFESSIONAL SEAL: REVISIONS: SHEET NUMBER: 10 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 10 2 0 3 0 4 0 4321 54321 CITY PERMIT #: 10 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 3 8 : 0 1 : 5 1 A M 1" = 20'-0" A.010 SITE PLAN 1 5 4 6 S 3 0 0 W DD MONTH YYYY JDH DG CONSTRUCTION 1546 S 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 22-12 BLD20XX-XXXXX 0'10'20'40'1" = 20' 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN. No. Date Description UP ZONING ANALYSIS ZONING JURISDICTION: SALT LAKE CITY ZONE:CG -GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SETBACKS: FRONT YARD 5'-0" CORNER SIDEYARD 10'-0" INTERIOR SIDE YARD NONE REAR YARD 10'-0" REQ'D PROPOSED MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 60'-0"86'-0" (90' W/ DESIGN REVIEW) STAIRELEV 287' - 0" LO A D I N G 2 8 ' - 6 " 33 ' - 1 1 " 1 4 ' - 7 " 4 8 ' - 0 " 55 ' - 5 " 34 ' - 0 " 1,777 SF RESTAURANT ANDREW AVE VAN BUREN AVE 3 0 0 W FRONT YARD SETBACK 2' - 0" FR O N T Y A R D S E T B A C K 2' - 0 " FR O N T Y A R D S E T B A C K 2 ' - 0 " STAIRL O A D I N G 41 9 S F BI K E S T O R A G E T.C. 26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 8"15' - 10"28' - 6"19' - 0"39' - 0" 779 SF R -1 BED 779 SF R -1 BED 846 SF R -1 BED 846 SF R -1 BED 846 SF R -1 BED 846 SF R -1 BED RAMP UP TO LEVEL 2 1,046 SF R -2 BED 1,053 SF R -2 BED R A M P U P 629 SF ENTRY LOBBY 2 1 4 ' - 4 " 37' - 11"28' - 5"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"26' - 4"24' - 8"25' - 4"39' - 0" 162' - 5"20' - 6" 2 1 4 ' - 4 " 15' - 8"43' - 5"27' - 1"28' - 2"24' - 9"23' - 4" 41' - 9"44' - 9"27' - 10"24' - 0"24' - 1" ELEV STAIR STAIR 586 SF AMENITIES 648 SF R -1 BED 632 SF R -1 BED 632 SF R -1 BED 632 SF R -1 BED 636 SF R -1 BED 712 SF R -1 BED 779 SF R -1 BED 779 SF R -1 BED 779 SF R -1 BED 780 SF R -1 BED571 SF R -0 BED 672 SF TRASH 459 SF TRASH 1,186 SF GYM 941 SF R -RETAIL 1,824 SF R -RETAIL REAR YARD SETBACK 5' - 0" 800 SF R -1 BED 800 SF R -1 BED 810 SF R -1 BED BUILDING A BUILDING B 800 SF R -1 BED 449 SF R -0 BED 973 SF R -2 BED 2,658 SF ENTRY ELEV ELEV ELEV STAIR 484 SF BIKE STORAGE 492 SF ENTRY LOBBY STAIR 539 SF OFFICE 835 SF AMENITIES p: 801-680-4485 www.divelept.com 10/30/2023 1:06:29 PM D G C O N S T R U C T I O N | 1 5 4 6 S 3 0 0 W | S I T E W E N 0'10'20'40'1" = 20' 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 1 PLAN - Unit Mix BUILDING AREA -... LEVEL NAME AREA BLDG A BUILDING TYPE IA LEVEL 1 - GND FL AMENITIES 10,038 SF LEVEL 1 - GND FL APARTMENTS 20,565 SF LEVEL 1 - GND FL PARKING 28,236 SF LEVEL 2 AMENITIES 6,211 SF LEVEL 2 APARTMENTS 19,976 SF LEVEL 2 PARKING 32,065 SF LEVEL 3 APARTMENTS 23,227 SF LEVEL 3 PARKING 35,617 SF 175,936 SF BUILDING TYPE IIIA LEVEL 4 APARTMENTS 40,404 SF LEVEL 5 APARTMENTS 40,447 SF LEVEL 6 APARTMENTS 40,447 SF LEVEL 7 APARTMENTS 40,447 SF LEVEL 8 APARTMENTS 40,447 SF 202,192 SF EXTERIOR LEVEL 4 ROOF GARDEN 17,969 SF 17,969 SF BLDG B BUILDING TYPE IA LEVEL 1 - GND FL AMENITIES 2,382 SF LEVEL 1 - GND FL APARTMENTS 4,083 SF LEVEL 1 - GND FL PARKING 26,274 SF LEVEL 2 APARTMENTS 8,298 SF LEVEL 2 PARKING 24,892 SF LEVEL 3 APARTMENTS 8,791 SF LEVEL 3 PARKING 24,964 SF 99,685 SF BUILDING TYPE IIIA LEVEL 4 APARTMENTS 26,454 SF LEVEL 5 APARTMENTS 26,454 SF LEVEL 6 APARTMENTS 26,454 SF LEVEL 7 APARTMENTS 26,454 SF LEVEL 8 APARTMENTS 26,454 SF 132,272 SF EXTERIOR LEVEL 4 ROOF GARDEN 6,412 SF PARKING PROVIDED TYPE COUNT BLDG A 9'-0" x18'-0" ADA 8 9'-0" x18'-0" ELECTRIC VEHICLE 10 9'-0" x 18'-0" 241 BLDG A: 259 BLDG B 9'-0" x18'-0" ADA 6 9'-0" x18'-0" ELECTRIC VEHICLE 8 9'-0" x 18'-0" 148 BLDG B: 162 Grand total: 421 PARKING REQUIRED UNIT TYPE UNIT COUNT PRKG REQD PER UNIT TOTAL PARKING REQD BLDG A R - 0 BED 10 1 10 R - 1 BED 229 1 229 R - 2 BED 32 1.25 40 R - RESTAURANT 2 3 6 R - RETAIL 2 3 6 BLDG A: 275 275 291 BLDG B R - 0 BED 6 1 6 R - 1 BED 134 1 134 R - 2 BED 20 <varies> 24.75 BLDG B: 160 160 164.75 Grand total 435 455.75 PROPERTY Name Area Acres TOTAL SITE 103,449 SF 2.37 LOADING SPACES... TYPE COUNT BLDG A 10'-0" x35'-0" LOADING 2 BLDG B 10'-0" x35'-0" LOADING 1 3 per 21A.44.050.B when there are two shared uses parking can be reduced by dividing by 1.2 Total parking required 450.75/1.2 = 376 (375.6) spots required ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: _________________ ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 6, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2023-00408 1518 S 300 W Alley Vacation Request STAFF CONTACT: Michael McNamee, Principal Planner (801)535-7226 or michael.mcnamee@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Alley Vacation request, with conditions. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jarod Hall, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for the vacation of two alleys located south and west of the above-stated address. One is approximately 16.5 feet by 148.6 feet, starting at a point 133.5 ft west of 300 West on Andrew Avenue and running north to south. The other is approximately 16.5 feet by 298.7 feet, starting at a point 56.1 ft north of Van Buren Avenue on 300 West and running east to west. The petitioner owns all the property surrounding the two alleys, and the purpose of the alley vacation request is to redevelop the surrounding property which would include the right-of-way within the proposed development. The proposed vacation will not impose access concerns because all of the subject properties that abut the alleys also have frontage on a public street. Only one property, a tow yard and auto body shop at 325 W Andrew Avenue, currently utilizes the north-south alley to access surface parking. The north-south alley and a portion of the east- rachel otto (Oct 9, 2023 11:20 MDT)10/09/2023 10/09/2023 west alley have been fenced off by neighboring property owners. The portion of the east-west alley that has been fenced off is being used for outdoor storage and parking. Alley Vacation requests must fulfill one of four policy considerations in section 14.52.020 of the City Code: Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, or Community Purpose. Requests are also reviewed against the factors found in 14.52.030.B. Staff’s analysis of the policy considerations determined that the standards are met by vacating this portion of the alleyway, which would not create detrimental impacts on abutting properties, with the condition that the north-south alley is replaced by a midblock connection that fully links Andrew and Van Buren Avenues. This condition ensures the proposed vacation complies with the Urban Design policy consideration. PUBLIC PROCESS: ● Early Notification – o Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on June 9, 2023. o Notification of the proposal was sent to the Ballpark Community Council on June 14, 2023. No formal comments have submitted by the Community Council to date. ● Planning Commission Meeting – On August 23, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed alley vacation. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for decision, with conditions. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of August 23, 2023 (Click to access) b) PC Minutes of August 23, 2023 (Click to access) c) PC Staff Report of August 23, 2023 (Click to access) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00408 – 1518 S 300 W Alley Vacation Request May 26, 2023 Petition for the alley vacation application received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. May 31, 2023 Petition assigned to Michael McNamee, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. June 9, 2023 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. June 14, 2023 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Ballpark Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. July 31, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. N o f ormal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. August 9, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. August 13, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. August 23, 2023 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 23, 2023. By a vote of 7-0, the Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation to City Council for the proposed alley vacation, with conditions. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00408 – Jarod Hall, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for the vacation of two alleys located south and west of the above-stated address. One is approximately 16.5 feet by 148.6 feet, starting at a point 133.5 ft west of 300 West on Andrew Avenue and running north to south. The other is approximately 16.5 feet by 298.7 feet, starting at a point 56.1 ft north of Van Buren Avenue on 300 West and running east to west. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24- Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Michael McNamee, Principal Planner at 801-535-7226 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at michael.mcnamee@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00408. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ________ of 2023 (Vacating city-owned alleys situated adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1528, 1540, and 1546 South 300 West, 325 and 333 West Andrew Avenue, and 352 West Van Buren Avenue) An ordinance vacating two unnamed, city-owned alleys adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1528, 1540, and 1546 South 300 West, 325 and 333 West Andrew Avenue, and 352 West Van Buren Avenue, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00408. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on August 23, 2023 to consider a request made by Jarod Hall (“Applicant”) to vacate two unnamed, city-owned alleys adjacent to properties located at 1518, 1528, 1540, and 1546 South 300 West, 325 and 333 West Andrew Avenue, and 352 West Van Buren Avenue (collectively, the “Property”); and WHEREAS, at its August 23, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there is good cause for the vacation of the alleys and neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alleys. That two unnamed, city-owned alleys adjacent to the Property, which are the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00408, and which are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby are, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said closure is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Conditions. The alley vacation set forth herein is conditioned upon (1) no portion of the alleys shall purport to be conveyed until at least 60 days after a final decision by the City Council on Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00408; (2) the owner of the Property shall enter into a development agreement with Salt Lake City that requires the creation of a public access midblock walkway between Andrew and Van Buren Avenues where the midblock walkway is between buildings on both the east and west sides that are in common ownership. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance until the conditions set forth in Section 3 are satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions set forth in Section 3 have not been met within one year after adoption of this ordinance, then this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the above conditions by resolution. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023 Published: ______________. Ordinance vacating alley adjacent 1515-1550 S 300 W APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney September 14, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Legal description of two unnamed, city-owned alleys to be vacated: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 37, STEWART’S ADDITION, ON FILE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER IN BOOK C, PAGE 51 OF PLATS, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 00°01’00” WEST 148.57 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 39 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89°53’26” EAST 148.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 39; THENCE SOUTH 00°01’02” WEST ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 300 WEST STREET A DISTANCE OF 16.50 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 89°53’26” WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 31 A DISTANCE OF 313.68 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°00’54” EAST 16.50 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 34 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 89°53’26” EAST 148.59 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 36 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 00°01’00” EAST 148.57 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 36; THENCE SOUTH 89°53’29” EAST ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ANDREW AVENUE A DISTANCE OF 16.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 7627 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. Item B9 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: Text Amendment Related to Historic Preservation Overlay District PLNPCM2023-00123 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: Text Amendment Related to Historic Preservation Overlay District PLNPCM2023-00123 BRIEFING UPDATE During the October 17, 2023 briefing Council Members expressed general support for the proposed text amendment and removing unnecessary barriers to the public for minor modifications. Under the proposal certificates of appropriateness could be denied at the staff level. Planning staff noted that a property owner who did not agree with the denial could appeal the decision to the City’s Appeals Hearing Officer. When asked about protections for non-contributing structures that still add character to a neighborhood, Planning explained that if alterations which rendered the building non-contributing can be removed, there is potential to change the building’s status to contributing. However, there are some alterations such as adding stucco to brick that cannot be removed, so the status would not be changed. A question was raised about the process for obtaining a demolition permit for non-contributing vs. contributing structures. Planning staff explained that the process for a non-contributing structure demolition permit is more streamlined and could be approved administratively following a notice mailed to neighbors which includes more information than is currently required. Demolition of contributing buildings is much more robust and requires Historic Landmark Commission approval following a notice mailed to a larger area. During a discussion about the process for claiming financial hardship, Planning staff clarified that the financial hardship is for the building being economically unfeasible to maintain, and not economic hardship for the building owners. There was mention of a penalty for property owners who allow a Item Schedule: Briefing: October 17, 2023 Set Date: October 17, 2023 Public Hearing: November 7, 2023 Potential Action: November 14, 2023 Page | 2 contributing building to fall into disrepair through willful neglect, though it was acknowledged this is outside the scope of this text amendment. Planning staff stated they will discuss the concept with the Attorney’s Office. The following information was provided for the October 17, 2023 Council briefing and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal initiated by the Administration to amend the City zoning ordinance related to the Historic Preservation Overlay District. If adopted, changes would apply citywide to properties within a local historic district or landmark site. Salt Lake City currently has 14 local historic districts, and approximately 150 landmark sites. Proposed changes would make the ordinance easier for applicants, property owners, staff, and for the Historic Landmark Commission in its administration. The proposal would also create new processes for adopting and updating historic resource surveys. Changes would reorganize and add clarity to existing processes and create new ones for updates to historic resource surveys, and factors to consider for historic status determinations (e.g., contributing, or noncontributing status) for individual properties in some circumstances. The following summarizes proposed ordinance changes: Reorganization •Reorganizes City Code to remove repetition, move definitions to definition chapter in Code, creates a new chapter in Code and moves the following to a new chapter: o Local historic district (LHD) designation, o Boundary adjustments to existing LHDs, o Revocation of landmark site designation. o (Note-Processing steps, requirements and standards for designations and amendments are not changed from current processes for the above items.) Proposed Changes/Additions •Some work would be exempt from requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) o Installation of storm windows o Small plaques o Mailboxes o Utility meters/charging stations, solar panels not visible from right-of-way •Review and approval of all solar panels at staff level (currently the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) must review solar panels on front façades). •Adds ability for some CoA requests to be denied at staff level if standards are not met. •Adds language to reflect HLC duties not currently listed such as making recommendations to the Board of State History for National Register Nominations and making recommendations to the City Council on development of incentive programs to encourage preservation of the City’s historic resources. •Adds mailing notice content requirements for demolition of a noncontributing building. •Requires application fees for determination of economic hardship, LHD boundary reduction, revocation of landmark site. •Increases application fees for some applications reviewed by HLC. •Adds new definitions-period of significance and historic integrity. •Adds language to have the City Council adopt historic resource surveys and associated reports accompanying local historic designations. •Fine tunes language. Page | 3 New Processes •Creates process and factors to consider for updates to historic resource surveys. •Creates process and factors to consider for historic status determinations (contributing or noncontributing status) for individual properties in some circumstances (e.g., property was not rated or warrants reconsideration). Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed text amendment. The Commission reviewed the proposal at its May 24, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which two people spoke. One person expressed concern with a lack of public process for changing a building’s status from contributory to non-contributory. Such a change is sometimes a precursor to demolition of the building. Planning staff noted there are no changes to the current process. The other person who spoke is with the East Liberty Park Community Organization. She thanked Planning staff for the proposal and for meeting with an ELPCO representative. She expressed concern about noticing requirements for changes to properties outside of local historic districts. Planning staff said there are no process or noticing requirement changes for landmark sites or properties in national historic districts. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed text amendment. It is worth noting the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the proposal at its May 4, 2023 meeting and also voted unanimously to recommend the City Council adopt the text amendment. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to discuss whether to include noticing requirements and opportunities for public input when changes to a building’s contributory status are being considered. There is currently no public notice requirement when changing a building’s status from contributing to non- contributing. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-11 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Historic Resource Survey Updates Each local historic district in the city has an associated historic resource survey which summarizes the study area and includes an inventory of each property, along with its contributory/non-contributory status. The Community Preservation Plan has policies to update resource surveys every 5-10 years. The proposed text amendment includes putting this process into the zoning ordinance. Updates to historic resource surveys would then be a decision made by the City Council, with public hearings at the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission. The City will soon issue a request for proposals to contract with consultants who will update several historic resource surveys. Surveys are more useful the more current they are. Time, maintenance, and changes to properties can impact the historic integrity of a property and whether its contributory status should be updated. Consideration 2 – Historic Status Determinations Page | 4 The proposed text amendment includes a process and standards for historic status determinations. The Zoning Administrator has authority to interpret zoning code standards and has issued historic status determinations for individual properties when there are questions about the historic status. The proposed text amendment puts this process into the zoning ordinance. There are instances where a timely determination of a property’s historic status is needed. Some examples are when a property is missed in a survey, is not given a historic status rating or rated incorrectly and needs to be reconsidered. These determinations can be initiated by the property owner or the Planning Director. If a property had alterations that are considered non-reversable, its status may change from contributory to non-contributory. On the other hand, if alterations to a building made it non-contributory and those alterations were removed, the building’s historic status may be changed to contributory. Some examples of buildings that had historic status review are included on pages 6-7 of the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration 3-Compliance with City Goals, Policies, and Master Plans Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment against the following City goals, policies, and master plans and found the proposal are consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Plan. •Preservation Philosophy (Resolution 53 of 2011) •Community Preservation Plan (2012) •Central Community Master Plan (2005) •Avenues Master Plan (1987) •Capitol Hill Master Plan (2001) •Downtown Master Plan (2016) •Plan Salt Lake (2015) ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STANDARDS Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment against the following criteria City Code says the City Council should consider. Please see Attachment B (pages 10-11) of the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements the best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies Page | 5 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • February 8, 2023-Mayor Mendenhall initiated the petitioner for amendments to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. • March 13, 2023-Notice emailed to all SLC registered recognized organizations including a draft of the proposed changes. • March 20, 2023-Information and a draft of the proposed changes was posted to the Planning Division’s online open house webpage. • April 17, 2023-Planning staff attended the Sugar House Community Council meeting to discuss the proposed text amendment and answer any questions from the community. • April 20, 2023-Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notices were posted on City and state websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 3, 2023-Planning staff attended the Central City Neighborhood Council meeting to discuss the proposed text amendment and answer any questions from the community. • May 4, 2023-Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council. • May 11, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 24, 2023-Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation for the proposed text amendment to the City Council. • May 30, 2023-Draft ordinance forwarded to the Attorney’s Office for review. • June 29, 2023- o Revised draft ordinance sent to the Attorney’s Office for review (technical changes were made to the draft during the month of June). o Planning received the final ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • June 30, 2023-Transmitted to Mayor’s Office. • August 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 202_ (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and amending the consolidated fee schedule.) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code and the consolidated fee schedule pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123 pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. WHEREAS, on May 4, 2023, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123) to amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; and WHEREAS, at its May 4, 2023 meeting, the Landmark Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said petition; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.040. That Section 21A.06.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Appeals Hearing Officer) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.06.040: APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: A. Creation: The position of appeals hearing officer is created pursuant to the enabling authority granted by the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, Section 10-9a-701 of the Utah Code. B. Jurisdiction and Authority: The appeals hearing officer shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.16, “Appeals of Administrative Decisions”, of this title; 2. Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.18, “Variances”, of this title; 3. Hear and decide appeals of any decision made by the historic landmark commission, or the planning director in the case of administrative decisions, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 21A.34.020, “H Historic Preservation Overlay District”, of this title; 4. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in title 20, “Subdivisions and Condominiums”, of this code; and 5. Hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions made by the planning commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this title. C. Qualifications: The appeals hearing officer shall be appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council. The mayor may appoint more than one appeals hearing officer, but only one appeals hearing officer shall consider and decide upon any matter properly presented for appeals hearing officer review. The appeals hearing officer may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of five (5) years each. The appeals hearing officer shall either be law trained or have significant experience with land use laws and the requirements and operations of administrative hearing processes. 3 D. Conflict of Interest: The appeals hearing officer shall not participate in any appeal in which the appeals hearing officer has a conflict of interest prohibited by Title 2, Chapter 2.44 of this code. E. Removal of The Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer may be removed by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the planning director following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the appeals hearing officer. If requested by the appeals hearing officer, the mayor shall provide the appeals hearing officer with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the mayor. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.050. That Section 21A.06.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Historic Landmark Commission) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.06.050: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: A. General Provisions: The provisions of Title 2, Chapter 2.07 of this code shall apply to the historic landmark commission except as otherwise set forth in this section. B. Creation: The historic landmark commission was created pursuant to the enabling authority granted by the Historic District Act, Section 11-18-1 et seq., of the Utah Code (repealed), and continues under the authority of Utah Code Section 10-8-85.9 and the Land Use Development and Management Act, Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. C. Jurisdiction and Authority: The historic landmark commission shall: 1. Review and approve or deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.34 of this title; 2. Participate in public education programs to increase public awareness of the value of historic, architectural and cultural preservation; Communicate the benefits of historic preservation for the education, prosperity, and general welfare of residents, visitors and tourists; 3. Review and approve or deny applications for the demolition of contributing principal structures in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 21A.34 of this title; 4 4. Review designations, amendments to and boundaries of a local historic district, thematic designation and landmark sites, and make a recommendation to the planning commission and the city council; 5. Make recommendations on applications for zoning amendments involving properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District when requested by the applicant, planning director, planning commission or the city council; 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for an administrative decision by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: a. Overall building and accessory structure height; b. Building and accessory structure wall height; c. Accessory structure square footage; d. Fence and retaining wall height; e. Signs pursuant to Section 21A.46.070 of this title; and f. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable standards identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic structures; 7. Make recommendations to the planning commission in connection with the preparation of the general plan of the city; 8. Make recommendations to the city council on design guidelines, policies and ordinances that may encourage preservation of buildings and related structures of historical and architectural significance; 9. Review historic resource surveys for designations and all subsequent updates and make recommendations to the planning commission and the city council; 10. Review National Register of Historic Places nominations or amendments and make a recommendation to the Utah Board of State History; and 11. Recommend to the city council development of incentive programs, either public or private, to encourage the preservation of the city’s historic resources. 5 D. Membership: The historic landmark commission shall consist of not less than seven (7) nor more than eleven (11) voting members appointed in a manner providing balanced geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests representation. In situations where a member resigns or is removed as prescribed in this code and adopted policies and procedures and as a result, the number of members drops to less than seven (7), the commission may still function until a 7th member is appointed. Appointment to a position created by any vacancy shall not be included in the determination of any person’s eligibility to serve two (2) consecutive full terms. E. Qualifications of Members: Each voting member shall be a resident of the city interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the city. Members shall be selected so as to ideally provide representation from the following groups of experts and interested parties whenever a qualified candidate exists: 1. At least two (2) architects, and 2. Residents at large possessing preservation related experience in archaeology, architecture, architectural history, construction, history, folk studies, law, public history, real estate, real estate appraisal, or urban planning. F. Meetings: The historic landmark commission shall meet at least once per month or as needed. G. Commission Action: A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required for any action taken. H. Public Hearings: The historic landmark commission shall schedule and give public notice of all public hearings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.10 of this title. I. Removal of a Member: Any member of the historic landmark commission may be removed by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the historic landmark commission following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the member. J. Policies and Procedures: The historic landmark commission shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.020.B. That Subsection 21A.010.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Application and Public 6 Hearing Procedures: Public Hearing Noticing Requirements: Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals: 1. Notice of Application for Design Review: a. Notification: At least twelve (12) days before a land use decision is made for an administrative design review application as authorized in Chapter 21A.59 of this title, the planning director shall provide written notice to the following: (1) All owners and identifiable tenants of the subject property, land abutting the subject property, and land located directly across the street from the subject property. In identifying the owners and tenants of the land the city shall use the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. (2) Recognized community organization(s) in which the subject property is located. b. Contents of the Notice of Application: The notice shall generally describe the subject matter of the application, where the public may review the application, the expected date when the planning director will authorize a final land use decision, and the procedures to appeal the land use decision. c. End of Notification Period: If the planning director receives comments identifying concerns related to the design review application not complying with the requirements of Chapter 21A.59, the planning director may refer the matter to the planning commission for their review and decision on the application. 2. Notice of Application for Demolition of a Noncontributing Principal Structure Within An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing principal structure, the city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action to all owners of the land and tenants of abutting properties and those properties across the street from the subject property as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Notice of Application: The mailing notice shall generally describe the subject property, include a vicinity map, include a photograph of the noncontributing structure, date of construction, historic status from the most recent historic survey on file or from a historic status determination, where the application can be inspected by the public, and the date when the planning director will issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 3. Notice of Application for TSA Development Reviews: Prior to the approval of a development review score as authorized in Section 21A.26.078 of this title, the planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve 7 (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and those properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Mailing Notice of Application: The notice for mailing shall generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal an administrative decision set forth in Chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020. That Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic Preservation Overlay District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement B. Applicability C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments or Revocation D. Historic Status Determination E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required F. Procedures for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site, Contributing Structure or New Construction of an Accessory Structure H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure I. Standards for Relocation J. Standards for Demolition of a Landmark Site K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building L. Economic Hardship Determination M. Reconstruction of a Carriage House on a Landmark Site A. Purpose Statement: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District is to: 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance; 8 2. Provide the means to manage alterations to historic structures to encourage beneficial use and viability of the building while protecting an individual building’s contributing status. 3. Encourage new development and redevelopment of properties that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks; 4. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 5. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation; 6. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 7. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city’s historic landmarks and districts for tourists and visitors; 8. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 9. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability. B. Applicability: All properties located within the boundaries of a local historic district, part of a thematic designation, or designated as a landmark site are subject to the requirements of this chapter. 1. Applicable Standards: The applicable standards of this chapter are determined by the historic status rating of the property, either contributing or noncontributing, as identified in the most recent historic resource survey on file with the Salt Lake City Planning Division or a historic status determination issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.D. C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments, or Revocation: Local Historic Designation, Adjustment, Expansion, or Revocation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic Designation shall follow the applicable procedures and standards in Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments. D. Historic Status Determination: 1. Purpose: Historic status determinations are to address the historic status of individual structures within a local historic district on a case-by-case basis through robust review of documentation in order to render a timely decision on the historic status for circumstances outlined below. 2. Applicability: Historic status determinations may be rendered for properties within an existing local historic district using the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 9 to determine whether they are contributing or noncontributing to the local historic district for the following: a. Unrated Properties: Properties that were inadvertently missed in a survey or not given a historic status rating; b. Incorrectly Rated Properties: Properties that may have been given an incorrect status rating in a survey; 3. Authority: Historic status determinations shall be made by the zoning administrator in the form of an administrative interpretation. 4. Persons Entitled to Seek Historic Status Determinations: Application for a historic status determination may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner’s authorized agent. The planning director may also initiate a petition for a historic status determination. 5. Limitations: A historic status determination shall not: a. Change the boundaries of the local historic district; b. Be issued for landmark sites; c. Be issued for structures that are not within period of significance in an adopted historic resource survey. 6. Application for Historic Status Determination: An administrative interpretation application may be made to the zoning administrator on a form provided, which shall include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: a. The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in the subject property. The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; b. The street address, legal description and tax number of the subject property; c. Current and historic photographs; d. Any historic resource surveys and reports on record in the Planning Division or the Utah State Historic Preservation Office; e. Description of any alterations to the structure and the date of approval for any alterations; f. The historic status rating the applicant believes to be correct. When the request is to change the historic status rating, the applicant shall state in the application the reason(s) the existing historic rating is incorrect and why it should be changed 10 based on the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7, or provide an intensive level historic resource survey conducted in accordance with the Utah State Preservation Office standards for building surveys addressing the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 for analysis by the zoning administrator. g. Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for a full and proper consideration of the particular application. 7. Considerations for Historic Status Determinations: A historic status determination may include the following considerations: a. Whether alterations that have occurred are generally reversible. b. Whether the building contributes to an understanding of a period of significance of a neighborhood, community, or area. c. Whether or not the building retains historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. The analysis shall take into consideration how the building reflects the historical or architectural merits of the overall local historic district in which the resource is located. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. 8. Decision: Written findings documenting the historic status determination shall be sent to the applicant and members of the historic landmark commission and kept on file in city records. 9. Updating Records: If the historic status determination is different than the property’s historic rating in the most recent historic resource survey, the determination will stand, and the city’s applicable historic resource survey(s) will be updated to reflect the determination. 10. Appeal of Decision: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the zoning administrator interpreting a provision of this title may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required: No alteration in the exterior appearance of a structure, site, or object affecting a property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made until an application for a certificate of appropriateness is approved by the historic landmark commission, or administratively by the planning director, as applicable, pursuant to Subsection F of this section. 11 1. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required for all of the following: a. Any exterior alteration to the property or any structure on the property unless specifically exempted under Subsection 21A.34.020.E.2; b. New Construction; c. Relocation of a structure or object on the same site or to another site; d. Demolition; 2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness: a. Installation of storm windows; b. Landscaping that: (1) Complies with the standards of this title; (2) Does not include a wall fence or grade changes; and (3) Is not an attribute that is a character defining feature of the property or streetscape; c. Painting of surfaces that does not include unpainted stone, brick or cement; d. Plaques, boxes, and other similar objects that measure 18 inches or less in any dimension, contain no electrical components, and are attached to exterior finish material or mounted through mortar joints when on a masonry wall; e. Electrical, gas, or water meters or outlets, including electric vehicle charging outlets, that are in a location that is not visible from the public right of way; f. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems that do not require new conduit and are not visible from the public right of way; and g. Solar energy collection systems meeting the priority locations outlined in Subsections 21A.40.190.B.3.a through 21A.40.190.B.3.c. F. Procedure for Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. Administrative Authority: The following may be decided by the planning director or designee: a. Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing building or structure; b. Alteration of or addition to a noncontributing building or structure; c. Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building or structure; 12 d. Demolition of an accessory building or structure; and e. Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure. 2. Historic Landmark Commission Authority: The following shall only be decided by the historic landmark commission: a. Substantial alteration or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, and/or structure; b. New construction of principal building in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; c. Relocation of landmark site or contributing principal building; d. Demolition of landmark site or contributing principal building; e. Economic hardship determination; f. Reconstruction of a carriage house on a landmark site; and g. Applications referred by the planning director. 3. Submission of Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be made on an application form prepared by the zoning administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all mailing fees established for required public noticing. a. General Application Requirements: A complete application shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in the subject property; (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets review standards with citation of supporting adopted city design guidelines; (5) Current and historic photographs of the property (6) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for project evaluation; 13 (7) Elevation drawings and details for all impacted facades; (8) Illustrative photos and or samples of all proposed façade materials; (9) Building, wall, and window section drawings; (10) Any further information or documentation as the zoning administrator deems necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. b. New Construction Application Requirements: In addition to the general application requirements listed above, applications for new construction of a primary structure shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) A context plan showing property lines, building footprints, front yard setbacks, adjacent streets and alleys, historic district boundaries, contributing/noncontributing structures and landmark sites; (2) A streetscape study which includes height measurements for each primary structure on the block face; (3) Renderings that show the new construction in relation to neighboring buildings; and (4) Renderings that show the new construction from the pedestrian perspective. 4. Notice: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness are subject to the notification requirements of Chapter 2.60 of this code. An application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing building or structure shall require notice pursuant to Chapter 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapters 2.60 and 21A.10 of this title. 5. Standards for Approval: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall be reviewed according to the standards set forth in Subsections G through M of this section, whichever are applicable. 6. Administrative Decisions: The planning director or designee shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the planning director or designee shall become effective upon issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. a. Referral of Application to Historic Landmark Commission: The planning director or designee may refer any application to the historic landmark commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance of change to the structure or site, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding architectural or other preservation issues. 14 7. Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: The historic landmark commission shall hold a public hearing to review the application in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title. The historic landmark commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the historic landmark commission shall become effective at the time the decision is made. Following a decision from the historic landmark commission to approve a certificate of appropriateness, the planning director or designee shall issue a certificate of appropriateness after all conditions of approval are met except for demolition of contributing principal buildings and landmark sites as outlined in Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. 8. Requirements for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: The certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building or landmark site shall not be issued until the following criteria is satisfied: a. The appeal period associated with the approval has expired. b. The landmark commission has granted approval for a new building that will replace the landmark site or contributing principal building to be demolished. The requirement for replacing the contributing principal building or landmark site with a new building may be waived by the historic landmark commission if a new development or redevelopment plan that includes the principal building to be demolished is approved by the historic landmark commission. c. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued simultaneously with the certificate of appropriateness and building permits for the replacement building. 9. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for demolition, the property shall not be removed from the H Historic Preservation Overlay District until the building has been demolished and revocation of the designation of a landmark site has been approved in accordance with Section 21A.51.050, Local Historic Amendments Process. 10. Exceptions of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of Hazardous Buildings: A hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent hazard to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building official shall notify the planning director for consultation and of the final decision. 11. Expiration of Approvals: No certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for a period of longer than one (1) year unless a building permit has been issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Salt Lake City Division of Building Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 15 completion; or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the historic landmark commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the planning director or designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) days prior to the one (1) year time period. 12. Appeal of Decisions: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the historic landmark commission, or in the case of administrative decisions, the planning director or designee, may file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure Including New Construction of an Accessory Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, or new construction of an accessory structure associated with a landmark site or contributing structure, the historic landmark commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall, using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, find that the project substantially complies with all of the following standards: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment; 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided; 3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed; 4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved; 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved; 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects; 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible; 8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with 16 the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment; 9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment; 10. Certain building materials are prohibited: a. Aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl cladding; and when applied directly to an original or historic material. b. Vinyl fencing. 11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Chapter 21A.46 of this title. H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness involving new construction of a principal building, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the historic landmark commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, determine whether the project substantially complies with each of the following standards that pertain to the application to ensure that the proposed project fits into the established context in ways that respect and contribute to the evolution of Salt Lake City’s architectural and cultural traditions: 1. Settlement Patterns and Neighborhood Character: a. Block and Street Patterns: The design of the project preserves and reflects the historic block, street, and alley patterns that give the district its unique character. Changes to the block and street pattern may be considered when advocated by an adopted city plan. b. Lot and Site Patterns: The design of the project preserves the pattern of lot and building site sizes that create the urban character of the historic context and the block face. Changes to the lot and site pattern may be considered when advocated by an adopted city plan. c. The Public Realm: The project relates to adjacent streets and engages with sidewalks in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects should maintain the depth of yard and height of principal 17 elevation of those existing on the block face in order to support consistency in the definition of public and semi-public spaces. d. Building Placement: Buildings are placed such that the project maintains and reflects the historic pattern of setbacks and building depth established within the historic context and the block face. Buildings should maintain the setback demonstrated by existing buildings of that type constructed in the district or site’s period of significance. e. Building Orientation: The building is designed such that principal entrances and pathways are oriented such that they address the street in the pattern established in the historic context and the block face. 2. Site Access, Parking, and Services: a. Site Access: The design of the project allows for site access that is similar, in form and function, with patterns common in the historic context and the block face. (1) Pedestrian: Safe pedestrian access is provided through architecturally highlighted entrances and walkways, consistent with patterns common in the historic context and the block face. (2) Vehicular: Vehicular access is located in the least obtrusive manner possible. Where possible, garage doors and parking should be located to the rear or to the side of the building. b. Site and Building Services and Utilities: Utilities and site/building services (such as HVAC systems, venting fans, and dumpsters) are located such that they are to the rear of the building or on the roof and screened from public spaces and public properties. 3. Landscape and Lighting: a. Grading of Land: The site’s landscape, such as grading and retaining walls, addresses the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. b. Landscape Structures: Landscape structures, such as arbors, walls, fences, address the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. c. Lighting: Where appropriate lighting is used to enhance significant elements of the design and reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. 4. Building Form and Scale: a. Character of the Street Block: The design of the building reflects the historic character of the street facade in terms of scale, composition, and modeling. 18 (1) Height: The height of the project reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects taller than those existing on the block face step back their upper floors to present a base that is in scale with the historic context and the block face. (2) Width: The width of the project reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects wider than those existing on the block face modulate the facade to express a series of volumes in scale with the historic context and the block face. (3) Massing: The shape, form, and proportion of buildings, reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. (4) Roof Forms: The building incorporates roof shapes that reflect forms found in the historic context and the block face. 5. Building Character: a. Facade Articulation and Proportion: The design of the project reflects patterns of articulation and proportion established in the historic context and the block face. As appropriate, facade articulations reflect those typical of other buildings on the block face. These articulations are of similar dimension to those found elsewhere in the context, but have a depth of not less than twelve inches (12”). (1) Rhythm of Openings: The facades are designed to reflect the rhythm of openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic context and the block face. (2) Proportion and Scale of Openings: The facades are designed using openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) of similar proportion and scale to that established in the historic context and the block face. (3) Ratio of Wall to Openings: Facades are designed to reflect the ratio of wall to openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic context and the block face. (4) Balconies, Porches, and External Stairs: The project, as appropriate, incorporates entrances, balconies, porches, stairways, and other projections that reflect patterns established in the historic context and the block face. 6. Building Materials, Elements and Detailing: a. Materials: Building facades, other than windows and doors, incorporate no less than eighty percent (80%) durable material such as, but not limited to, wood, 19 brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and/or cut stone. These materials reflect those found elsewhere in the district and/or setting in terms of scale and character. b. Materials on Street-Facing Facades: The following materials are not considered to be appropriate and are prohibited for use on facades which face a public street: vinyl siding and aluminum siding. c. Windows: Windows and other openings are incorporated in a manner that reflects patterns, materials, profile, and detailing established in the district and/or setting. d. Architectural Elements and Details: The design of the building features architectural elements and details that reflect those characteristic of the district and/or setting. 7. Signage Location: Locations for signage are provided such that they are an integral part of the site and architectural design and are complementary to the principal structure. I. Standards for Relocation of Landmark Site or Contributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for relocation of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the historic landmark commission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following standards: 1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure; 2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district; 3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the structure; 4. The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness of the building or structure; 5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being stored; and 6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to the city. The financial guarantee shall be in a form approved by the city attorney, in an amount determined by the planning director sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as approved by the historic landmark commission and restore the grade and landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs. 20 J. Standards for Demolition of Landmark Site: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a landmark site, the historic landmark commission shall only approve the application upon finding that the project fully complies with one of the following standards: 1. The demolition is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety pursuant to Subsection 21A.34.020.F.10; or 2. A determination of economic hardship has been granted by the historic landmark commission pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.L. K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building: When considering a request for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building, the historic landmark commission shall determine whether the request substantially complies with the following standards: 1. The historic integrity of the site as defined in Section 21A.62.040 is no longer evident and the site no longer meets the definition of a contributing building or structure in Section 21A.62.040; 2. The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively materially affected if the contributing principal building were to be demolished; 3. The demolition would not create a material adverse effect on the concentration of historic resources used to define the boundaries or maintain the integrity of the district; 4. The base zoning of the site does not permit land uses that would allow the adaptive reuse of the contributing principal building; 5. The contributing principal building has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: a. Willful or negligent acts that have caused significant deterioration of the structural integrity of the contributing principal building to the point that the building fails to substantially conform to applicable standards of the state construction code, b. Failure to perform routine and appropriate maintenance and repairs to maintain the structural integrity of the contributing principal building, or c. Failure to secure and board the contributing principal building, if vacant, per Section 18.64.045 of this code. L. Economic Hardship Determination: Upon denial of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building by the historic landmark commission, the owner and/or owner’s representative will have one year from the end of the appeal period as described in Chapter 21A.16 of this title, to submit an application for determination of 21 economic hardship. In the case of a landmark site, an application for determination of economic hardship shall be submitted at the same time as an application for demolition of a landmark site to meet the standard of Subsection 21A.34.020.J.2 of this section. 1. Application for Determination of Economic Hardship: An application for a determination of economic hardship shall be made on a form provided by the zoning administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 2. Evidence for Determination of Economic Hardship: The burden of proof is on the owner or owner’s representative to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an economic hardship. Any finding in support of economic hardship shall be based solely on the hardship of the property. Evidence may include, but is not limited to: a. Physical condition of the property at time of purchase and the applicant’s plans for the property at time of purchase. b. The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to the following: (1) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between applicant, and the person from whom the property was purchased; (2) The annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, for the previous three (3) years; (3) Real estate taxes for the previous three (3) years by the Salt Lake County Assessor; (4) An appraisal, no older than six (6) months at the time of application for determination of economic hardship conducted by an MAI certified appraiser licensed within the State of Utah. Also all appraisals obtained within the previous three (3) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property; (5) The fair market value of the property taking into consideration the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; and (6) For non-residential or multifamily properties, any state or federal income tax returns on or relating to the property for the previous three (3) years. c. The marketability of the property for sale or lease, as determined by any listing of the property for sale or lease, and price asked and offers received, if any, within the previous two (2) years. This determination can include testimony and relevant documents regarding: (1) Any real estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property; 22 (2) Reasonableness of the price in terms of fair market value or rent sought by the applicant; and (3) Any advertisements placed for the sale or rental of the property. d. The feasibility of alternative uses for the property as considered in relation to the following: (1) Report from a licensed engineer or architect with demonstrated experience in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the structural soundness of any building on the property; (2) An estimate of the cost of the proposed construction or alteration, including the cost of demolition and removal, and potential cost savings for reuse of materials; (3) The estimated market values of the property in current condition, after completion of the demolition; and after renovation of the existing property for continued use; and (4) The testimony of a professional with demonstrated experience in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building on the property. An experienced professional may include, but is not limited to, an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or any other professional experienced in preservation or rehabilitation of older buildings and licensed within the State of Utah. e. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through federal, state, city, or private programs. f. Description of past and current use. g. An itemized report that identifies what is deficient if the building does not meet minimum city building code standards or violations of this code and whether any exceptions within Chapter 12 Historic Buildings of the IEBC, or its successor, could be used to resolve those deficiencies. h. Consideration of map amendment, conditional use, or other land use processes to alleviate hardship. 3. Procedure for Determination of Economic Hardship: a. Appointment of Qualified Expert: The planning director shall appoint a qualified expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or testimony to the historic landmark commission concerning the value of the property and whether or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. (1) The extent of the Authority: The planning director’s appointed qualified expert is limited to rendering advice and testimony to the historic landmark commission and has no decision-making capacity. 23 (2) The planning director’s appointed qualified expert shall have considerable and demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic properties, real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or law. (3) The historic landmark commission may also consider other expert testimony upon reviewing the evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert as necessary. b. Review of Evidence: The historic landmark commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title to consider the evidence submitted, and the advice and testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert. c. Finding of Economic Hardship: If after reviewing all of the evidence presented by the applicant and the advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert, and if the historic landmark commission finds that the applicant has presented sufficient information supporting a determination of economic hardship, then the historic landmark commission shall approve the demolition. In order to show that all beneficial or economically viable use cannot be obtained, the historic landmark commission must find that all of the following are met: (1) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be economically used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if rehabilitated; (2) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any reasonable beneficial use in its present condition or if rehabilitated; and (3) Bona fide efforts during the previous year to sell or lease the contributing principal building or landmark site at a reasonable price have been unsuccessful. d. Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: If the historic landmark commission finds an economic hardship, a certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. e. Denial of Economic Hardship: If the historic landmark commission does not find an economic hardship, then the application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be denied. No further economic hardship determination applications may be considered for the subject property for three (3) years from the date of the final decision of the historic landmark commission. The historic landmark commission may waive this restriction if the historic landmark commission finds there are circumstances sufficient to warrant a new hearing other than the re-sale of the property or those caused by the negligence or intentional acts of the owner. M. Reconstruction of a Carriage House on a Landmark Site: 24 1. Applicability: The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the following criteria are satisfied: a. The property and address are a landmark site. For the purpose of this section, any site that has been further subdivided since the construction of the last principal building on the site shall be considered part of the landmark site. b. Documentation has been provided that indicates a carriage house associated with the historic period of the landmark site existed on the site. Documentation may include any property related record, prior survey, photographs, site plans, or similar records. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the necessary documentation and justification for the proposed dimensions and details of the carriage house that is proposed to be reconstructed. Documentation shall provide sufficient detail to estimate the approximate details of the carriage house, including: (1) The approximate location of the carriage house on the site and estimated setbacks; (2) The approximate footprint shape and size; (3) The approximate shape, slope, and details of the roof of the structure proposed to be reconstructed; (4) The approximate height of the structure in feet, based on the scale of existing buildings or structures that are also visible in historic documentation or the dimensions of the historic building materials, if available. The approximate height shall include wall height and roof height; and (5) The location, arrangement, size, and details of any window or door, including carriage entries. 2. Application Requirements: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall be considered an application for new construction and include all the application requirements for new construction in this section and documentation requirements in Subsection 1.b above. 3. Approval Standards: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall be subject to the following standards. An application shall be approved if the following standards are complied with: a. Reconstruction shall only be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portion of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture; b. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships; c. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture; 25 d. Proposed designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed or considered; e. The proposed carriage house shall match the footprint size, shape, and location on the property based on the historic documentation provided by the applicant. Historic documentation shall be used to approximate the location and dimensions of the structure; f. The proposed carriage house shall match the approximate roof shape of the original carriage house; g. The entryways into the house, including reconstructed entryways for carriages, shall approximately match historic entryways commonly found on carriage houses from the same era as the original carriage house; and h. Impacts to adjacent properties, including but not limited to solar access, noise, light trespass, refuse storage, and mechanical equipment locations, parking locations, have been mitigate or can be mitigated through the site layout, appropriate buffering, and/or building designs. 4. Complying With Additional Codes: An application approved under this section shall comply with all applicable codes, regulations and engineering standards that have been adopted by the State of Utah or the city. 5. Subdivision Prohibited: Further subdivision of the property after approval of a reconstruction under this section is prohibited and portions of Section 21A.38.060 authorizing subdivisions of lots with more than two principal buildings shall not be applicable. 6. Allowed Uses After Reconstruction: The following uses shall be allowed in a reconstructed carriage house approved under this section: a. A single family dwelling, regardless of lot area, lot width or street frontage; b. Any accessory use authorized in the underlying zoning district or overlay district; or c. Accessory dwelling units subject to the applicable regulations for accessory dwelling units. 7. Modifications Authorized: In considering a proposal to reconstruct a carriage house under this section, the historic landmark commission may modify the following standards upon finding that the proposal complies with the applicable standards: a. Minimum lot area when the lot does not contain the minimum lot area for an additional dwelling unit; b. Modifications to Sections 21A.36.010 and 21A.36.020; and c. Any authorized modification identified in Section 21A.06.050. 8. Updated Intensive Level Survey Required: If approved, the applicant shall provide the city and updated intensive level survey to document the changes to the site. 26 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.190.B. That Subsection 21A.40.190.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or Landmark Sites) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and Historic Preservation Overlay Districts: 1. General: In addition to meeting the standards set forth in this section, all applications to install a small solar energy collection system within the Historic Preservation Overlay District shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with Section 21A.34.020 prior to installation. Small solar energy collection systems shall be allowed in accordance with the location priorities detailed in Subsection B.3 of this section. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this Subsection B, and any other requirements of this section, the provisions of this Subsection B shall take precedence. 2. Installation Standards: The small solar energy collection system shall be installed in a location and manner on the building or lot that is least visible and obtrusive and in such a way that causes the least impact to the historic integrity and character of the historic building, structure, site or district while maintaining efficient operation of the solar device. The system must be installed in such a manner that it can be removed and not damage the historic building, structure, or site it is associated with. 3. Small Solar Energy Collection System Location Priorities: In approving appropriate locations and manner of installation, consideration shall include the following locations in the priority order they are set forth below. The method of installation shall be the least visible from a public right-of-way, not including alleys, and most compatible with the character defining features of the historic building, structure, or site. a. Rear yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. b. On accessory buildings or structures in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. c. In a side yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. d. On the principal building in a location not readily visible from a public right-of- way. e. On the principal building in a location that may be visible from a public right-of- way, but not on the structure’s front facade. f. On the front facade of the principal building in a location most compatible with the character defining features of the structure. 27 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.020. That Section 21A.50.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Authority) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.020: AUTHORITY: The text of this title and the zoning map may be amended by the passage of an ordinance adopted by the city council in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Sites are subject to the procedures in Chapter 21A.51, Local Historic Designations and Amendments. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.030. That Section 21A.50.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Initiation) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.030: INITIATION: Amendments to the text of this title or to the zoning map may be initiated by filing an application for an amendment addressed to the planning commission. Applications for amendments may be initiated by the mayor, the city council, the planning commission, or the owner of the property included in the application, or the property owner’s authorized agent. Applications related to the Homeless Resource Center Overlay shall be initiated as provided in Chapter 21A.34 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.040.B That Section 21A.50.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Fees) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Application and noticing fees filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. Application and noticing fees filed to establish a character conservation district shall not be required. 28 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.060 That Section 21A.50.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Limitation on Amendments) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.060: LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS: A. No application for an amendment to this title shall be considered by the city council or the planning commission within one year of the withdrawal by the applicant or final decision of the city council upon a prior application covering substantially the same subject or substantially the same property. B. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an application pursuant to Section 21A.50.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not restrict the mayor, the city council or the planning commission from proposing any text amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the districts in this title at any time. SECTION 10. Adopting a new Chapter 21A.51 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of the Salt Lake City Code (Local Historic Designation and Amendments) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments and shall read as follows: Chapter 21A.51 LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATON & AMENDMENTS 21A.51.010: Purpose Statement 21A.51.020: Authority 21A.51.030: Local Historic Designation Process 21A.51.040: Local Historic Designation Criteria 21A.51.050: Existing Local Historic Amendment Process 21A.51.060: Existing Local Historic Amendment Criteria 21A.51.070: Limitations 21A.51.080: Historic Resource Surveys 21A.51.090: Appeal of Decision 21A.51.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments to the zoning map related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The H Historic 29 Preservation Overlay District applies to all properties within the boundaries of a local historic district, part of a thematic designation, or a landmark site. 21A.51.020: AUTHORITY: A. Authority: Pursuant to the procedures and standards in this chapter and the standards for general amendments in Section 21A.50.050, the city council may amend the zoning map and apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District by the passage of an ordinance and: 1. Designate a landmark site; 2. Designate as a local historic district; 3. Designate as a thematic designation; 4. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation; 5. Revoke designation of a landmark site; 6. Adopt comprehensive historic resource surveys and associated reports for new landmark sites, local historic districts or thematic designations; and 7. Adopt updates to historic resource surveys and associated reports for existing local historic districts or thematic designations in accordance with the provisions in Section 21A.51.080. 21A.51.030: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS: Salt Lake City will consider the local designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which represent significant elements of the city’s prehistory, history, development patterns or architecture. Local designation must be in the best interest of the city and achieve a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. A. Process for Designation of a Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: 1. Procedures Required Before an Application Can be Submitted: Prior to the submittal of an application for the designation or amendment local historic district or thematic designation, and prior to gathering any signatures for an application, the following steps must be completed: a. Pre-application Conference: A potential applicant shall attend a pre-application conference with the planning director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the merits of the proposed designation and the amendment processes as outlined in this section. 30 b. Notification to Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication conference outlined in Subsection A.1.a of this section, the city shall send by first class mail a neutral informational pamphlet to owners of record for each property potentially affected by a forthcoming application. The informational pamphlet shall be mailed after a potential applicant submits to the city a finalized proposed boundary of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of the process to create a local historic district or thematic designation and will also list the pros and cons of a local historic district or thematic designation. Once the city sends the informational pamphlet, gathering of property owner signatures may begin per Subsection A.2 of this section. The informational pamphlet sent shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an application is not filed with the city within ninety (90) days after the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed, the city shall close its file on the matter. Any subsequent proposal must begin the application process again. 2. Application: a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: The mayor or the city council, by a majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of a local historic district or thematic designation. A property owner submitting such application shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the interest in that lot or parcel. (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the thirty three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures obtained for that lot or parcel. (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed as required per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b and the date of the last required signature. b. Submittal Requirements: An application shall be made to the zoning administrator on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator, which shall 31 include at least the following information unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) Information demonstrating the procedures in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b have been followed; (2) Information demonstrating the requirements in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.a have been met; (3) Street addresses and parcel numbers of all properties included in the proposed local designation; (4) Photos of all properties included in the proposed designation; (5) Narrative demonstrating compliance with the standards and considerations in Section 21A.51.040; and (6) Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for consideration of a particular application. c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a local historic district or thematic designation shall not be required. 3. Notice of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the city of an application for the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall send a notice of designation application letter to owner(s) of record for each property affected by said application along with a second copy of the informational pamphlet described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b. In the event that no application is received following the ninety (90) day period of property owner signature gathering, the city will send a letter to property owner(s) of record stating that no application has been filed, and that the city has closed its file on the matter. 4. Planning Director Report to the City Council: Following the receipt by the city of an application for the designation to a local historic district or thematic designation and following mailing of the notice of designation application letter described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3, the planning director shall submit a report based on the following considerations to the city council: a. Whether a current historic survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State Historic Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed for a local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not available, the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. 32 b. The city administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the planning division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new local historic district or thematic designation if the designation is approved by the city council. If sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed budget. c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent with the purposes and designation criteria in Section 21A.51.040 and the zoning map amendment criteria in Section 21A.50.050, “Standards for General Amendments”, of this title. f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3 of this section to all property owners within a proposed local historic district following the preapplication process outlined in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b. 5. Notification to Recognized Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 6. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the planning director’s report and acceptance of the report by the city council, the planning division will conduct a community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed boundaries of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation about the following: a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner support, the public hearing process, and final decision-making process by the city council; and b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the economic hardship process. 33 7. Open House: The planning division will conduct an open house pursuant to Section 2.60.050. 8. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of some modification of the proposal. 9. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: a. Following the completion of the historic landmark commission and planning commission public hearings, the city will deliver property owner opinion ballots via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the city council of property owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property owner opinion ballot. (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; (2) The city shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot for: (a) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; or (b) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and (c) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the city shall count a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the property owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who own at least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the city indicating the property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been 34 received by the city within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the first property owner opinion ballot. 10. Notification of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the city will send notice of the results to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic designation. 11. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the historic landmark commission and the planning commission and the results of the property owner opinion ballot process, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title and the following: a. If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of returned property owner support ballots and represents more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a condominium) within the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic designation, the city council may designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a simple majority vote. b. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the threshold identified in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11.a the city council may only designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the city council. c. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in opposition is equal, the city council may only designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a super majority vote. B. Process for Designation of a Landmark Site: 1. Application: a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: Any owner of property proposed for a landmark site, the mayor or the city council, by majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider the designation of a landmark site. 35 b. Submittal Requirements: Applications for landmark sites shall provide at least all of the information in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.b unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator. c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a landmark site shall not be required. 2. Notification to Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 3. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of some modification of the proposal and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. 4. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the historic landmark commission and the planning commission, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a landmark site in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority vote, designate a landmark site. C. City Council Decision: Following city council designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, all of the properties located within the boundaries of the local historic district, landmark site, or thematic designation will be subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of the publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 1. Designation Adoption: Designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation includes adoption of the historic survey and associated report submitted for the designation. Historic resource surveys may be updated pursuant to the provisions in Section 21A.51.080 or Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 2. Notice of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall provide notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 36 21A.51.040: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA: A. Standards for the Designation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: The proposed landmark site, local historic district, or thematic designation shall be evaluated according to the following: 1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following: a. Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance, or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and 2. Historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. When analyzing historic integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. 3. The proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 4. The proposed designation contains notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt Lake City; 5. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 6. The designation would be in the overall public interest. B. Factors to Consider: The following factors may be considered by the historic landmark commission and the city council to help determine whether the proposed designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the criteria listed above: 37 1. Sites are of an age that allows insight into whether a property is sufficiently important in the overall history of the community as identified in one or more periods of significance in a historic survey report. Typically, this is at least fifty (50) years but could be less if the property has exceptional importance. 2. Whether the proposed local historic district or thematic designation contains examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture that may not already be protected by other local historic districts within the city. 3. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation would add important knowledge that advances the understanding of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture. 4. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent applicable historic survey and those relate to identified significance and periods of significance. C. Boundaries of a Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to ensure that historical associations, that best enhance the integrity of the site comprise the boundaries. D. Boundaries of a Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the local historic district: 1. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or features rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 2. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, subdivision plats or property lines; 3. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized neighborhood boundaries; and 4. Contains noncontributing resources or vacant land only where necessary to create appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria in Subsections 21A.51.040.A and 21A.51.040.D. E. Boundaries of a Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation criteria of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic designation contains a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are associated by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 38 21A.51.050: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT PROCESS: A. Applicability: Existing Local Historic Amendments applies to the following: 1. Expanding the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or adding additional properties to an existing thematic designation; 2. Reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or removing properties from an existing thematic designation; and 3. Revocation of the designation of a landmark site. B. Process for Amendments to Existing Local Historic Districts and Thematic Designations: 1. Boundary Expansion: The process for expanding the boundaries of an existing local historic district or adding properties to a thematic designation shall be the same as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that the following shall only apply to the properties being added into the proposed expanded boundary and do not apply to those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District: a. The notification to affected property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b; b. The application submittal requirements for demonstrating support of 33% of the property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2; c. The property owner meeting described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.6; d. The opinion ballot described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9; e. Notification of property owner opinion balloting results in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.10; and f. City council consideration opinion ballot thresholds described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11. 2. Boundary Reduction: The process for reducing the boundaries of an existing local historic district or removing properties from a thematic designation shall be the same as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that: a. The requirements described in Subsection 21A.51.050.B.1.a through f, shall only apply to those properties proposed to be removed from the local historic district or thematic designation and do not apply to those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 39 b. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. C. Amendments to Existing Landmark Sites: 1. Boundary Expansion or Reduction or Revocation: The process for expanding or reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site or the revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall follow the steps outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.B in addition to: a. Fees: Applications for reducing the boundaries of a landmark site or for the revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. 21A.51.060: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT CRITERIA: A. Expansion: A proposed expansion of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or the addition of properties to a thematic designation shall be considered utilizing the provisions of Subsections 21A.51.040.A through E and provided that new information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would better convey the historical and architectural integrity of the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. B. Reduction: A proposed reduction of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district or the removal of properties from a thematic designation shall demonstrate the properties have no longer met the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A for inclusion within the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. The qualities that caused them to be originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such qualities were lost subsequent to the historic landmark commission recommendation and adoption of the designation. C. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: A proposal for revocation of a landmark site shall demonstrate the property no longer meets the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A for which it was originally designated. 21A.51.070: LIMITATIONS: 40 A. If a local historic district or thematic designation proposal fails in accordance with the voting procedures set forth in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9, a resident may not initiate the creation of a local historic district or thematic designation that includes more than fifty percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district or thematic designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the property owner opinion ballots for the vote were due. 1. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an application pursuant to Section 21A.51.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not restrict the mayor or the city council from initiating a petition at any time for a new local historic district or thematic designation, or to amend the boundaries of a local historic district or the removal or addition of properties in a thematic designation. 21A.51.080: HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEYS A. Existing Historic Resource Surveys: Any historic resource survey that was conducted for the city prior to the amendment of this chapter shall be utilized by the planning director and the historic landmark commission in applying provisions of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Any subsequent adoption of a historic resource survey will be done by ordinance in accordance with the provisions in this chapter and will supersede previous surveys. B. Updates to Historic Resource Surveys: 1. Applicability: The city aims to update historic resource surveys on a periodic basis as recommended by the National Park Service. Updates to surveys are for land use purposes to determine periods of significance, to determine historic status of individual properties, to update the national register, and to keep archival records on historic properties. Updates to a historic resource survey for existing local historic district is subject to the following: a. The standards of the H Historic Preservation Overlay apply to those properties within an adopted local historic district. Any other properties evaluated in a historic resource survey outside the boundary of a designated local district or thematic designation will not be subject to the land use regulations associated with historic status designations in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. b. An updated historic resource survey maintains the boundaries of a local historic or the properties within a thematic designation but may update the historic status of properties within the adopted H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 41 c. Historic Status Determinations: Instances where the historic status of an individual property within a local historic district is in question, the zoning administrator will use the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.D to make a timely determination. d. Any properties changing status from the most recent historic resource survey shall be specifically identified in the updated survey and their period of significance and historic status listed. 2. Process for Updating Historic Resource Surveys: a. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the updated historic resource survey or the approval of some modification of the updated historic resource survey and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. b. City Council: Following the transmittal of the historic landmark commission’s recommendation, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider adopting the updated historic survey in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority vote, adopt the updated historic resource survey. In deciding to adopt an updated historic resource survey, the city council may consider the following in their decision making: (1) Any benefit or impact that extending the period of significance would have on the local district or thematic designation and the city; (2) Any new period of significance in the updated survey is identified and associated with at least one of the following: (a) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or (b) Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or (c) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or (d) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and 42 (3) Any properties within a new period of significance will be assessed for aspects of integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service Aspects of integrity. When analyzing integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. If integrity is intact, the property is denoted as contributing in the updated survey; (4) Any notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt Lake City are specifically identified for any new periods of significance in the updated survey; (5) The historic survey update would be in the overall public interest. C. City Council Action: If an updated historic resource survey is adopted by the city council, the updated historic resource survey including any updated historic status designations shall be used when applying provisions of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in Section 21A.34.020. The decision to update a historic resource survey will go into effect on the date of the publication of the related ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 21A.51.090: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any party adversely affected by the decision of the city council may, within thirty (30) days after such decision, file a petition for review to the District Court pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, Section 10-9a-801, of the Utah Code. SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order: Contributing Structure Noncontributing Structure Demolition (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) Demolition, Partial (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) 43 Historic Design Guidelines Historic Integrity Economic Hardship Historic Resource Survey Landmark Site Local Historic District Period of Significance Thematic Designation Willful Neglect SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add the following definitions, which shall be inserted in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H historic preservation overlay district that has been determined through the process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, to generally retain historic integrity. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. A contributing structure generally has its major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred, they are generally reversible. DEMOLITION (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Any act or process which destroys a structure, object or property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. (See definition of demolition, partial.) DEMOLITION, PARTIAL (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Partial demolition includes any act which destroys a portion of a structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the floor area of the structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty five percent (25%) when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a structure and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or economically viable use of a property without just compensation. 44 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES: The historic design guidelines provide guidance in determining the suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, alteration or new construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that meet current needs of properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. For architects, designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning and designing future projects. For city staff and the historic landmark commission, they provide guidance for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines are officially adopted by city council. HISTORIC INTEGRITY: The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or attributes. As defined by the National Park Service, the following aspects or qualities, in various combinations, define historic integrity: Location- Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where a historic event occurred. Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling: Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Historic resource surveys shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum professional qualifications defined by the U.S. National Park Service in the fields of history, archeology, architectural history, architecture, or historic architecture. LANDMARK SITE: Any historic site that has been designated in accordance with Subsection 21A.51.030.B or any site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. A landmark site includes an individual building, structure or feature or an integrated group of buildings, structures or features on a single site. Such sites are of exceptional importance to the city, state, region or nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural values. A 45 landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site. Landmark sites are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020, the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A contiguous geographically definable area with a minimum district size of one “block face”, as defined in Section 21A.62.040, designated by the city council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which contains buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape features, archaeological sites and works of art, or a combination thereof, that contributes to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. All properties within a local historic district are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that has been determined noncontributing through the process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, and does not retain historic integrity. The major character defining features have been so altered as to make the historic form, materials or details indistinguishable and such alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may also include those rated out of period, and therefore, they are not representative of a period of significance as identified in an adopted historic resource survey. PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: The period of significance is the period when the historic events associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site occurred. This period must reflect the dates associated with the property or site, or in the case of a district, the collection of properties within the district. A period of significance may be thousands of years (in the case of an archeological property), several years, or even a few days, depending on the duration of the event. There may be multiple periods of significance associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site. THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or features designated by City Council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. All properties within a thematic designation are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a building over time. SECTION 13. Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule. That the section of the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule titled, “Zoning Fees” shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 46 ZONING FEES For question regarding Zoning fees contact: 801.535.7700 Service Fee Additional Information Section Determination of Nonconforming Use $214 21A.38.025.4 Administrative Interpretation $71 Plus $61 per hour for research after the first hour 21A.12.040.A.6 Alley Vacation/Closure $285 Fee waiver available if adequate signatures are obtained. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 14.52.030. A.5 Alternative Parking Residential $428 21A.52.040 .A.3 Nonresidential $785 21A.52.040 .A.3 Amendments Master plan $1,070 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (10.9a.204). Utah Code 10.9A.510 Zoning map amendment $1,142 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.50.040.B Zoning text amendment $1,142 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.50.040.B Annexation $1,427 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) Utah Code 10.2.401.5 Appeal of a Decision Administrative decision $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Historic Landmark Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Planning Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Appearance Before the Zoning Enforcement Hearing Office First scheduled hearing No charge 21A.20.90 Second scheduled hearing $71 21A.20.90 Billboard Construction or Demolition including the demolition of a non-conforming billboard $285 21A.46.160.D.3 & 21A.46.160.L.2 Conditional Building and Site Design Review $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.59.070.B Conditional Use $856 See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 21A.54.060.C Condominium Preliminary $571 Plus $37 per unit. See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 20.56.40.B Final $428 Plus $24 per unit. 20.56.40.B Declaration of Surplus Real Property $428 2.58.040 Historic Landmarks Commission Review (Application) Major Alterations of a principal building $100 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 New construction of a principal building $2,982 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Demolition of a contributing principal building $2,406 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Relocation of a contributing principal building $303 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Reduction to boundaries of the H Historic Pres. $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 47 Overlay District Revocation of a Landmark Site $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 Economic Hardship $2,050 Plus $200/hour up to $20,000. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Home Occupation Non-conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Outdoor Dining Outdoor Dining Application $30 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (1-5 tables) $120 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (6 or more tables) $180 21A.40.065 Planned Development $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of (1) acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.55 Signs Permit fee for signs Based on the adopted Building Permit Fee Schedule 21A.46.030 Plan checking fee $0.13 Of building permit value 21A.46.030 Inspection tag $14 21A.46.030 Site Development Permit $285 Plus $61 per acre in excess of one (1) acre 18.28.040.E Street Closure $428 See also fee for required public notices. 2.58.040 Subdivision Amendments $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Final Plat $856 Plus $121 per lot. 20.04.120 Subdivision Vacations $428 See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Engineering Review and Inspection Fee 5% of the 1st $100,000 of public improvemen ts & 2% for the amount above $100,000 20.04.120 Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $284 20.04.120 Subdivision Consolidating Lots $273 20.04.120 Temporary Uses $285 21A.42.060.B Zoning Variance $428 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.18.040.B As per applicable sections of the city and/or state code, a fee will be assessed for required public notices. This may include sending notice by 1st class U.S. Mail to property owners within a certain radius of the subject property and / or advertising required public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. A fee for each required public hearing will be assessed. The noticing fee is authorized through the following sections of the zoning ordinance and state law: Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.010.E and Utah Code Section 10-9a-501. 48 SECTION 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 202_. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 202_. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending H Historic Preservation Overlay District regs (final) 9-26-23 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney September 26, 2023 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. _____ of 202_ 3 4 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 5 pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and 6 amending the consolidated fee schedule.) 7 8 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code and the 9 consolidated fee schedule pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123 pertaining to the H 10 Historic Preservation Overlay District. 11 WHEREAS, on May 4, 2023, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission 12 (“Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin 13 Mendenhall (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123) to amend various sections of 14 Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; 15 and 16 WHEREAS, at its May 4, 2023 meeting, the Landmark Commission voted in favor of 17 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning 18 Commission”) and the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and 19 WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said 20 petition; and 21 WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 22 transmitting a positive recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and 23 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 24 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 25 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 26 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.040. That 27 Section 21A.06.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: 28 Appeals Hearing Officer) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 29 21A.06.040: APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: 30 A. Creation: The position of Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer is created pursuant to the enabling 31 authority granted by the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, 32 sSection 10-9a-701 of the Utah Code Annotated. 33 34 B. Jurisdiction aAnd Authority: The Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer shall have the following 35 powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 36 37 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the Zzoning 38 Aadministrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the 39 procedures and standards set forth in cChapter 21A.16, “Appeals oOf Administrative 40 Decisions”, of this title; 41 42 2. Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and 43 standards set forth in cChapter 21A.18, “Variances”, of this title; 44 45 3. Hear and decide appeals of any administrative decision made by the Hhistoric 46 Llandmark Ccommission, or the planning director in the case of administrative 47 decisions, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in sSection 21A.34.020, 48 “H Historic Preservation Overlay District”, of this title; 49 50 4. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Pplanning Ccommission 51 concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and 52 standards set forth in title 20, “Subdivisions aAnd Condominiums”, of this Ccode; 53 and 54 55 5. Hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions made by the planning 56 commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this title. 57 58 C. Qualifications: The appeals hearing officer shall be appointed by the mayor with the 59 advice and consent of the city council. The mayor may appoint more than one appeals 60 hearing officer, but only one appeals hearing officer shall consider and decide upon any 61 matter properly presented for appeals hearing officer review. The appeals hearing officer 62 may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of five (5) years each. The 63 appeals hearing officer shall either be law trained or have significant experience with 64 land use laws and the requirements and operations of administrative hearing processes. 65 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 66 D. Conflict oOf Interest: The appeals hearing officer shall not participate in any appeal in 67 which the appeals hearing officer has a conflict of interest prohibited by tTitle 68 2, cChapter 2.44 of this code. 69 70 E. Removal oOf The Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer may be removed 71 by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the 72 planning director following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the 73 appeals hearing officer. If requested by the appeals hearing officer, the mayor shall 74 provide the appeals hearing officer with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer 75 appointed by the mayor. 76 77 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.050. That 78 Section 21A.06.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: 79 Historic Landmark Commission) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 80 21A.06.050: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: 81 82 A. General Provisions: The provisions of tTitle 2, cChapter 2.07 of this code shall apply to 83 the historic landmark commission except as otherwise set forth in this section. 84 85 B. Creation: The historic landmark commission was created pursuant to the enabling 86 authority granted by the hHistoric dDistrict aAct, sSection 11-18-1 et seq., of the Utah 87 Code Annotated, 1953 (repealed), and continues under the authority of Utah Code 88 Section 10-8-85.9 and the lLand uUse dDevelopment and mManagement aAct, Utah 89 cCode cChapter 10-9a. 90 91 C. Jurisdiction Aand Authority: The historic landmark commission shall: 92 93 1. Review and approve or deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness 94 pursuant to the provisions of cChapter 21A.34 of this title; 95 96 2. Participate in public education programs to increase public awareness of the value of 97 historic, architectural and cultural preservation; Communicate the benefits of historic 98 preservation for the education, prosperity, and general welfare of residents, visitors 99 and tourists; 100 101 3. Review and approve or deny applications for the demolition of contributing principal 102 structures in the H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay dDistrict pursuant to cChapter 103 21A.34 of this title; 104 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 105 4. Review designations, amendments to and boundaries of a local historic district, 106 thematic designation and landmark sites, and make a recommendation Recommend to 107 the planning commission and the city council; the boundaries for the establishment of 108 an H historic preservation overlay district and landmark sites; 109 110 5. Make recommendations when requested by the planning commission, the hearing 111 officer or the city council, as appropriate, on applications for zoning amendments and 112 conditional uses involving properties within the H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay 113 dDistricts; when requested by the applicant, planning director, planning commission 114 or the city council; 115 116 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for 117 properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority 118 is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H 119 Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for an administrative approval 120 decision by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications 121 to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in 122 addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: 123 124 a. Overall building and accessory structure height; 125 ba. Building and accessory structure wall height; 126 b. Accessory structure wall height; 127 c. Accessory structure square footage; 128 d. Fence and retaining wall height; 129 e. Overall building and accessory structure height; 130 ef. Signs pursuant to sSection 21A.46.070 of this title; and 131 fg. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying 132 zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable 133 standards identified in sSection 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the 134 surrounding historic structures.; 135 7. Make recommendations to the planning commission in connection with the 136 preparation of the general plan of the city; and 137 138 8. Make recommendations to the cCity cCouncil on design guidelines, policies and 139 ordinances that may encourage preservation of buildings and related structures of 140 historical and architectural significance.; 141 142 9. Review historic resource surveys for designations and all subsequent updates and 143 make recommendations to the planning commission and the city council; 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 144 145 10. Review National Register of Historic Places nominations or amendments and make a 146 recommendation to the Utah Board of State History; and 147 148 11. Recommend to the city council development of incentive programs, either public or 149 private, to encourage the preservation of the city’s historic resources. 150 151 D. Membership: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall consist of not less than seven 152 (7) nor more than eleven (11) voting members appointed in a manner providing balanced 153 geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests representation. In 154 situations where a member resigns or is removed as prescribed in this code and adopted 155 policies and procedures and as a result, the number of members drops to less than seven 156 (7), the commission may still function until a 7th member is appointed. Appointment to a 157 position created by any vacancy shall not be included in the determination of any 158 person’s eligibility to serve two (2) consecutive full terms. 159 160 E. Qualifications Oof Members: Each voting member shall be a resident of the Ccity 161 interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the Ccity. Members 162 shall be selected so as to ideally provide representation from the following groups of 163 experts and interested parties whenever a qualified candidate exists: 164 165 1. At least two (2) architects, and 166 167 2. Citizens Residents at large possessing preservation related experience in archaeology, 168 architecture, architectural history, construction, history, folk studies, law, public 169 history, real estate, real estate appraisal, or urban planning. 170 171 F. Meetings: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall meet at least once per month or 172 as needed. 173 174 G. Commission Action: A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at 175 which a quorum is present shall be required for any action taken. The decision of the 176 Historic Landmark Commission shall become effective upon the posting of the record of 177 decision. 178 179 H. Public Hearings: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall schedule and give public 180 notice of all public hearings pursuant to the provisions of cChapter 21A.10 of this title. 181 182 I. Removal Oof Aa Member: Any member of the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission may 183 be removed by the Mmayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures 184 adopted by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission following receipt by the Mmayor of a 185 written complaint filed against the member. 186 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 187 J.Policies aAnd Procedures: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall adopt policies 188 and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any 189 other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. 190 191 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.020.B. That 192 Subsection 21A.010.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Application and Public 193 Hearing Procedures: Public Hearing Noticing Requirements: Special Noticing Requirements for 194 Administrative Approvals) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 195 B. Special Noticing Requirements fFor Administrative Approvals: 196 197 1. Notice Oof Application for Design Review: 198 199 a. Notification: At least twelve (12) days before a land use decision is made for an 200 administrative design review application as authorized in Chapter 21A.59 of this 201 title, the planning director shall provide written notice to the following: 202 203 (1) All owners and identifiable tenants of the subject property, land abutting the 204 subject property, and land located directly across the street from the subject 205 property. In identifying the owners and tenants of the land the city shall use 206 the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. 207 (2) Recognized community organization(s) in which the subject property is 208 located. 209 210 b. Contents of the Notice of Application: The notice shall generally describe the 211 subject matter of the application, where the public may review the application, the 212 expected date when the planning director will authorize a final land use decision, 213 and the procedures to appeal the land use decision. 214 c. End of Notification Period: If the planning director receives comments identifying 215 concerns related to the design review application not complying with the 216 requirements of Chapter 21A.59, the planning director may refer the matter to the 217 planning commission for their review and decision on the application. 218 219 2. Notice of Application for Demolition of a Noncontributing Principal Structure Within 220 An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of At least twelve 221 (12) days before a land use decision is made on an application for an administrative 222 decision for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing 223 principal structure, the city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum 224 of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action of the request to 225 demolish the structure and to identify that a determination has been made that the 226 building has been identified as a noncontributing building. This notice will be sent to 227 all owners of the land and tenants, of abutting properties and those properties across 228 the street from the subject property within eighty-five feet (85') of the land subject to 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 229 the application as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system 230 records. At the end of the twelve (12) day notice period, the planning director shall 231 either issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or refer the application to 232 the historic landmark commission. 233 234 a. Contents of the Notice of Application: The mailing notice shall generally describe 235 the subject property, include a vicinity map, include a photograph of the 236 noncontributing structure, date of construction, historic status from the most 237 recent historic survey on file or from a historic status determination, where the 238 application can be inspected by the public, and the date when the planning 239 director will issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 240 241 3. Notice Of Application For Special Exceptions: Prior to the approval of an 242 administrative decision for special exceptions as authorized in chapter 21A.52 of this 243 title, the Planning Director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum 244 of twelve (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and 245 those properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property 246 owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake 247 City geographic information system records. 248 a. Contents Of The Mailing Notice Of Application: The notice for mailing shall 249 generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such 250 application may be inspected by the public, the date when the Planning Director 251 will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal 252 an administrative decision set forth in chapter 21A.16 of this title. 253 254 3. Notice oOf Application fFor TSA Development Reviews: Prior to the approval of a 255 development review score as authorized in Section 21A.26.078 of this title, the 256 planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve 257 (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and those 258 properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property 259 owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake 260 City geographic information system records. 261 a. Contents oOf tThe Mailing Notice oOf Application: The notice for mailing shall 262 generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such 263 application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director 264 will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal 265 an administrative decision set forth in Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 266 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 267 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020. That 268 Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic 269 Preservation Overlay District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 270 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: 271 272 A. Purpose Statement 273 B. Applicability 274 C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments or Revocation 275 D. Historic Status Determination 276 E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required 277 F. Procedures for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness 278 G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site, Contributing Structure or New 279 Construction of an Accessory Structure 280 H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure 281 I. Standards for Relocation 282 J. Standards for Demolition of a Landmark Site 283 K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building 284 L. Economic Hardship Determination 285 M. Reconstruction of a Carriage House on a Landmark Site 286 287 288 A. Purpose Statement: 289 290 In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City, 291 the purpose of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District is to: 292 293 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the Ccity and individual structures 294 and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance; 295 296 2. Provide the means to manage alterations to historic structures to encourage beneficial 297 use and viability of the building while protecting an individual building’s contributing 298 status. 299 300 32. Encourage new development, and redevelopment and the subdivision of properties 301 lots in Historic Districts that is compatible with the character of existing development 302 of Hhistoric Ddistricts or individual landmarks; 303 304 43. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 305 306 54. Implement adopted plans of the Ccity related to historic preservation; 307 308 65. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 309 310 76. Protect and enhance the attraction of the Ccity’s historic landmarks and districts for 311 tourists and visitors; 312 313 87. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 314 315 98. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability. 316 317 B. Definitions: 318 CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic Preservation 319 Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C15 of this section and is of 320 moderate importance to the City, State, region or Nation because it imparts artistic, historic 321 or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character defining features intact and 322 although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic 323 materials may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact. 324 DEMOLITION: Any act or process which destroys a structure, object or property within the 325 H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. (See definition of demolition, 326 partial.) 327 DEMOLITION, PARTIAL: Partial demolition includes any act which destroys a portion of a 328 structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the floor area of the 329 structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is not readily visible from 330 the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials 331 not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty five percent (25%) 332 when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a structure 333 and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. 334 DESIGN GUIDELINES: The design guidelines provide guidance in determining the 335 suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, alteration or new 336 construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that meet current needs 337 of properties located within the Historic Preservation Overlay District. For architects, 338 designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning and designing 339 future projects. For City staff and the Historic Landmark Commission, they provide guidance 340 for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines are officially 341 adopted by City Council. 342 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or 343 economically viable use of a property without just compensation. 344 HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the 345 quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the 346 guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 347 1. Reconnaissance level surveys (RLS) are the most basic approach for systematically 348 documenting and evaluating historic buildings in Utah communities and involves 349 only a visual evaluation of properties. 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 350 2. Intensive level surveys (ILS) include in depth research involving research on the 351 property and its owners, documentation of the property’s physical appearance and 352 completion of the Utah State Historic Office’s historic site form. 353 LANDMARK SITE: Any site included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources 354 that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C15 of this section. Such sites are of exceptional 355 importance to the City, State, region or Nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural 356 values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to 357 interpret the historic character of the site. 358 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A geographically or thematically definable area within the 359 H Historic Preservation Overlay District designated by the City Council pursuant to the 360 provisions of this section, which contains buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape 361 features, archaeological sites and works of art, or a combination thereof, that contributes to 362 the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. 363 NEW CONSTRUCTION: The building of a new principal building within the H Historic 364 Preservation Overlay District or on a landmark site. 365 NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure within the H Historic Preservation 366 Overlay District that does not meet the criteria listed in subsection C15 of this section. The 367 major character defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic 368 form, materials and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing 369 structures may also include those which are less than fifty (50) years old. 370 THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or 371 features which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united 372 together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic 373 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic 374 interest or value. 375 WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a 376 building over time. 377 B. Applicability: All properties located within the boundaries of a local historic district, part 378 of a thematic designation, or designated as a landmark site are subject to the requirements 379 of this chapter. 380 381 1. Applicable Standards: The applicable standards of this chapter are determined by the 382 historic status rating of the property, either contributing or noncontributing, as 383 identified in the most recent historic resource survey on file with the Salt Lake City 384 Planning Division or a historic status determination issued in accordance with 385 Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 386 387 C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments, or Revocation: Local Historic Designation, 388 Adjustment, Expansion, or Revocation oOf aA Landmark Site, Local Historic District 389 oOr Thematic Designation shall follow the applicable procedures and standards in 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 390 Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments.; H Historic Preservation 391 Overlay District: 392 393 1. Intent: Salt Lake City will consider the designation of a landmark site, or thematic 394 designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which represent 395 significant elements of the City’s prehistory, history, development patterns or 396 architecture. Designation of a local historic district must be in the best interest of the 397 City and achieve a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public 398 interest in preserving the City’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. The City 399 Council shall determine that designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 400 thematic designation is the best method of preserving a unique element of history 401 important to understanding the prehistory or history of the area encompassed by the 402 current Salt Lake City corporate boundaries. 403 2. City Council May Designate Or Amend Landmark Sites, Local Historic Districts Or 404 Thematic Designations: Pursuant to the procedures in this section and the standards 405 for general amendments in section 21A.50.050 of this title the City Council may by 406 ordinance apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and: 407 a. Designate as a landmark site an individual building, structure or feature or an 408 integrated group of buildings, structures or features on a single lot or site having 409 exceptional importance to the City, State, region or Nation and impart high 410 artistic, historic or cultural values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of 411 time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site; 412 b. Designate as a local historic district a contiguous area with a minimum district 413 size of one “block face”, as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title, containing 414 a number of sites, buildings, structures or features that contribute to the historic 415 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or 416 aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the City; 417 c. Designate as a thematic designation a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or 418 features which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that 419 are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and 420 contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting 421 historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value; and 422 d. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark 423 site, local historic district or thematic designation. 424 3. Preapplication Conference: Prior to the submittal of an application for the designation 425 or amendment to a landmark site(s), local historic district(s) or thematic 426 designation(s), and prior to gathering any signatures in support of such an application, 427 a potential applicant shall attend a preapplication conference with the Planning 428 Director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the merits of the 429 proposed designation and the amendment processes as outlined in this section. 430 4. Notification Of Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication conference 431 outlined in subsection C3 of this section and prior to the submittal of an application 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 432 for the designation or amendment to a local historic district(s) or thematic 433 designation(s), the City shall send by first class mail a neutral informational pamphlet 434 to owners of record for each property potentially affected by a forthcoming 435 application. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of 436 the process to create a local historic district and will also list the pros and cons of a 437 local historic district. The informational pamphlet shall be mailed after a potential 438 applicant submits to the City a finalized proposed boundary of an area to be included 439 in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Once the City sends the informational 440 pamphlet, property owner signature gathering may begin per subsection C5b of this 441 section. The informational pamphlet sent shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an 442 application is not filed with the City within ninety (90) days after the date that the 443 informational pamphlet was mailed, the City shall close its file on the matter. Any 444 subsequent proposal must begin the application process again. 445 5. Petition Initiation For Designation Of A Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 446 Thematic Designation: 447 a. Petition Initiation For H Historic Preservation Overlay District; Landmark Site: 448 Any owner of property proposed for a landmark site, the Mayor or the City 449 Council, by majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider the designation of a 450 landmark site. 451 b. Petition Initiation For H Historic Preservation Overlay District; Local Historic 452 District Or Thematic Designation: A property owner initiating such a petition 453 shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of 454 the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to 455 be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The Mayor or the 456 City Council, by a majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of 457 a local historic district or thematic designation. 458 (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be 459 included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is 460 signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the 461 interest in that lot or parcel. 462 (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the 463 thirty three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures 464 obtained for that lot or parcel. 465 (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent 466 (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local 467 historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of 468 ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet 469 was mailed as required per subsection C4 of this section and the date of the 470 last required signature. 471 c. Fees: No application fee will be required for a petition initiated by a property 472 owner for designation of a property to the H Historic Preservation Overlay 473 District. 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 474 6. Notice Of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the City of an 475 application for the designation or amendment to a local historic district(s) or thematic 476 designation(s), the City shall send a notice of designation application letter to 477 owner(s) of record for each property affected by said application along with a second 478 copy of the informational pamphlet described in subsection C4 of this section. In the 479 event that no application is received following the ninety (90) day period of property 480 owner signature gathering, the City will send a letter to property owner(s) of record 481 stating that no application has been filed, and that the City has closed its file on the 482 matter. 483 7. Planning Director Report To The City Council: Following the initiation of a petition 484 to designate a landmark site or a local historic district or thematic designation, the 485 Planning Director shall submit a report based on the following considerations to the 486 City Council: 487 a. Whether a current survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State Historic 488 Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed for a 489 local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not available, 490 the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. 491 b. The City administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine 492 whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the 493 Planning Division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource 494 analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new landmark site, local 495 historic district or thematic designation if the designation is approved by the City 496 Council. If sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed 497 budget. 498 c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, 499 objectives and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning 500 documents. 501 d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. 502 e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local 503 historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent 504 with the purposes and designation criteria in subsection C15 of this section and 505 the zoning map amendment criteria in section 21A.50.050, “Standards For 506 General Amendments”, of this title. 507 f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per subsection C4 of 508 this section to all property owners within a proposed local historic district 509 following the presubmittal process outlined in subsection C3 of this section. 510 8. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the Planning Director’s report 511 and acceptance of the report by the City Council, the Planning Division will conduct 512 a community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed 513 boundaries of the proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic 514 designation about the following: 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 515 a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner 516 support, the public hearing process, and final decision making process by the City 517 Council; and 518 b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic 519 Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review 520 process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the 521 economic hardship process. 522 9. Open House: Following the property owner meeting, the Planning Division will 523 conduct an open house for the owners of property within the proposed boundaries of 524 the local historic district or thematic designation to provide the information described 525 in subsections C8a and C8b of this section. 526 10. Public Hearing Process: 527 a. Historic Landmark Commission Consideration: Following the initiation of a 528 petition to designate a landmark site or a local historic district, the Historic 529 Landmark Commission shall hold a public hearing and review the request by 530 applying subsection C15, “Standards For The Designation Of A Landmark Site, 531 Local Historic District Or Thematic Designation”, of this section. Following the 532 public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission shall recommend approval, 533 approval with modifications or denial of the proposed designation and shall then 534 submit its recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. 535 b. Planning Commission Consideration: Following action by the Historic Landmark 536 Commission, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and shall 537 recommend approval, approval with modifications or denial of the proposed 538 designation based on the standards of section 21A.50.050 of this title, zoning map 539 amendments and shall then submit its recommendation to the City Council. 540 11. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: 541 a. Following the completion of the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning 542 Commission public hearings, the City will deliver property owner opinion ballots 543 via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the 544 proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner 545 opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the City Council of property 546 owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each 547 individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the 548 number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property 549 owner opinion ballot. 550 (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property 551 owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; 552 (2) The Municipality shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot 553 for: 554 (A) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district 555 or area; or 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 556 (B) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the 557 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and 558 (3) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the Municipality shall 559 count a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the 560 property owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who 561 own at least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. 562 b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the 563 property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the City indicating the 564 property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. 565 c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic 566 district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been 567 received by the City within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This 568 follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner 569 opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the 570 first property owner opinion ballot. 571 12. Notification Of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public 572 opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the City will send notice of the results 573 to all property owners within the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic 574 designation. 575 13. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the Historic Landmark 576 Commission and the Planning Commission recommendations and the results of the 577 property owner opinion process, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to 578 consider the designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic 579 designation. 580 a. Designation Of A Landmark Site: The City Council may, by a majority vote, 581 designate a landmark site. 582 b. Designation Of A Local Historic District Or Thematic Designation: 583 (1) If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) 584 of the total number of returned property owner support ballots, and represents 585 more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a 586 condominium project) within the proposed local historic district, area, or 587 thematic designation, the City Council may designate a local historic district 588 or a thematic district by a simple majority vote. 589 590 (2) If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the 591 threshold identified in subsection C13b(1) of this section, the City Council 592 may only designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an 593 affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the City Council. 594 (3) If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in 595 opposition is equal, the City Council may only designate a local historic 596 district or a thematic district by a super majority vote. 16 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 597 c. Following Designation: Following City Council designation of a landmark site, 598 local historic district or thematic designation, all of the property located within the 599 boundaries of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be subject to the 600 provisions of this section. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of 601 the publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adoption ordinance. 602 14. Notice Of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a 603 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the City shall provide 604 notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic 605 Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the Office of 606 the County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H Historic 607 Preservation Overlay District. 608 15. Standards For The Designation Of A Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 609 Thematic Designation: Each lot or parcel of property proposed as a landmark site, for 610 inclusion in a local historic district, or for thematic designation shall be evaluated 611 according to the following: 612 a. Significance in local, regional, State or national history, architecture, engineering 613 or culture, associated with at least one of the following: 614 (1) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 615 history, or 616 (2) Lives of persons significant in the history of the City, region, State, or 617 Nation, or 618 (3) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or 619 the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 620 (4) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of 621 Salt Lake City; and 622 b. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 623 feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service for the National 624 Register of Historic Places; 625 c. The proposed local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible 626 to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 627 d. The proposed local historic district contains notable examples of elements of the 628 City’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other 629 local historic districts within Salt Lake City; 630 e. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 631 f. The designation would be in the overall public interest. 632 16. Factors To Consider: The following factors may be considered by the Historic 633 Landmark Commission and the City Council to help determine whether the proposed 634 designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the 635 criteria listed above: 17 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 636 a. Sites should be of such an age which would allow insight into whether a property 637 is sufficiently important in the overall history of the community. Typically this is 638 at least fifty (50) years but could be less if the property has exceptional 639 importance. 640 b. Whether the proposed local historic district contains examples of elements of the 641 City’s history, development patterns and/or architecture that may not already be 642 protected by other local historic districts within the City. 643 c. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district would add important 644 knowledge that advances the understanding of the City’s history, development 645 patterns and/or architecture. 646 d. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the 647 proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent 648 applicable historic survey. 649 17. Boundaries Of A Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in 650 subsection C15 of this section, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to 651 ensure that historical associations, and/or those which best enhance the integrity of 652 the site comprise the boundaries. 653 18. Boundaries Of A Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation 654 criteria in subsection C15 of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the 655 local historic district: 656 a. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or 657 features rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 658 b. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, 659 subdivision plats or property lines; 660 c. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized 661 neighborhood boundaries; and 662 d. Contains nonhistoric resources or vacant land only where necessary to create 663 appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria of subsection C15 of this section. 664 19. Boundaries Of A Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation 665 criteria of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic 666 designation contains a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are 667 united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute 668 to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, 669 architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 670 D. The Adjustment Or Expansion Of Boundaries Of An H Historic Preservation Overlay 671 District And The Revocation Of The Designation Of Landmark Site: 672 1. Procedure: The procedure for the adjustment of boundaries of an H Historic 673 Preservation Overlay District and the revocation of the designation of a landmark site 674 shall be the same as that outlined in subsection C of this section. 18 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 675 2. Criteria For Adjusting The Boundaries Of An H Historic Preservation Overlay 676 District: Criteria for adjusting the boundaries of an H Historic Preservation Overlay 677 District are as follows: 678 a. The properties have ceased to meet the criteria for inclusion within an H Historic 679 Preservation Overlay District because the qualities which caused them to be 680 originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such qualities were lost 681 subsequent to the Historic Landmark Commission recommendation and adoption 682 of the district; 683 b. Additional information indicates that the properties do not comply with the 684 criteria for selection of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as outlined in 685 subsection C15 of this section; or 686 c. Additional information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would 687 better convey the historical and architectural integrity of the H Historic 688 Preservation Overlay District, provided they meet the standards outlined in 689 subsection C15 of this section. 690 3. Criteria For The Expansion Of An Existing Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 691 Thematic Designation: A proposed expansion of an existing landmark site, local 692 historic district or thematic designation shall be considered utilizing the provisions of 693 subsections C15 through C19 of this section. 694 4. Criteria For The Revocation Of The Designation Of A Landmark Site: Criteria are as 695 follows: 696 a. The property has ceased to meet the criteria for designation as a landmark site 697 because the qualities that caused it to be originally designated have been lost or 698 destroyed or the structure has been demolished; or 699 b. Additional information indicates that the landmark site does not comply with the 700 criteria for selection of a landmark site as outlined in subsection C15 of this 701 section; or 702 c. Additional information indicates that the landmark site is not of exceptional 703 importance to the City, State, region or Nation. 704 D. Historic Status Determination: 705 706 1. Purpose: Historic status determinations are to address the historic status of individual 707 structures within a local historic district on a case-by-case basis through robust review 708 of documentation in order to render a timely decision on the historic status for 709 circumstances outlined below. 710 711 2. Applicability: Historic status determinations may be rendered for properties within an 712 existing local historic district using the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 713 to determine whether they are contributing or noncontributing to the local historic 714 district for the following: 715 19 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 716 a. Unrated Properties: Properties that were inadvertently missed in a survey or not 717 given a historic status rating; 718 719 b. Incorrectly Rated Properties: Properties that may have been given an incorrect 720 status rating in a survey; 721 722 3. Authority: Historic status determinations shall be made by the zoning administrator in 723 the form of an administrative interpretation. 724 725 4. Persons Entitled to Seek Historic Status Determinations: Application for a historic 726 status determination may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner’s 727 authorized agent. The planning director may also initiate a petition for a historic 728 status determination. 729 730 5. Limitations: A historic status determination shall not: 731 732 a. Change the boundaries of the local historic district; 733 b. Be issued for landmark sites; 734 c. Be issued for structures that are not within period of significance in an adopted 735 historic resource survey. 736 737 6. Application for Historic Status Determination: An administrative interpretation 738 application may be made to the zoning administrator on a form provided, which shall 739 include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning 740 administrator: 741 742 a. The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in 743 the subject property. The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if 744 different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the 745 application; 746 b. The street address, legal description and tax number of the subject property; 747 c. Current and historic photographs; 748 d. Any historic resource surveys and reports on record in the Planning Division or 749 the Utah State Historic Preservation Office; 750 e. Description of any alterations to the structure and the date of approval for any 751 alterations; 752 f. The historic status rating the applicant believes to be correct. When the request is 753 to change the historic status rating, the applicant shall state in the application the 754 reason(s) the existing historic rating is incorrect and why it should be changed 755 based on the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7, or provide an 756 intensive level historic resource survey conducted in accordance with the Utah 757 State Preservation Office standards for building surveys addressing the 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 758 considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 for analysis by the zoning 759 administrator. 760 761 g. Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for a full and 762 proper consideration of the particular application. 763 764 7. Considerations for Historic Status Determinations: A historic status determination 765 may include the following considerations: 766 767 a. Whether alterations that have occurred are generally reversible. 768 b. Whether the building contributes to an understanding of a period of significance 769 of a neighborhood, community, or area. 770 c. Whether or not the building retains historic integrity in terms of location, design, 771 setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 772 21A.62.040. The analysis shall take into consideration how the building reflects 773 the historical or architectural merits of the overall local historic district in which 774 the resource is located. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a 775 local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures 776 in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of 777 each individual building or structure in a district. 778 8. Decision: Written findings documenting the historic status determination shall be sent 779 to the applicant and members of the historic landmark commission and kept on file in 780 city records. 781 782 9. Updating Records: If the historic status determination is different than the property’s 783 historic rating in the most recent historic resource survey, the determination will 784 stand, and the city’s applicable historic resource survey(s) will be updated to reflect 785 the determination. 786 787 10. Appeal of Decision: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the 788 zoning administrator interpreting a provision of this title may appeal to the appeals 789 hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 790 791 E. Certificate oOf Appropriateness Required: After the establishment of an H Historic 792 Preservation Overlay District, or the designation of a landmark site, nNo alteration in the 793 exterior appearance of a structure, site, or object or work of art affecting the landmark 794 site or a property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made or 795 permitted to be made unless or until the an application for a certificate of appropriateness 796 is has been submitted to, and approved by, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 797 administratively by the Pplanning Ddirector, as applicable, pursuant to sSubsection F of 798 this section. Certificates of appropriateness shall be required for: 799 21 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 800 1. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required for all of the following: 801 a1. Any exterior alteration to the property or any structure on the property unless 802 specifically exempted under Subsection 21A.34.020.E.2; construction needing a 803 building permit; 804 b2. New construction; Removal and replacement or alteration of architectural 805 detailing, such as porch columns, railing, window moldings, cornices and siding; 806 c3. Relocation of a structure or object on the same site or to another site; 807 d4. Demolition; Construction of additions or decks; 808 5. Alteration or construction of accessory structures, such as garages, etc.; 809 6. Alterations to windows and doors, including replacement or changes in fenestration 810 patterns; 811 7. Construction or alteration of porches; 812 8. Masonry work including, but not limited to, tuckpointing, sandblasting, painting and 813 chemical cleaning; 814 9. The construction or alterations of site features including, but not limited to, fencing, 815 walls, paving and grading; 816 10. Installation or alteration of any exterior sign; 817 11. Any demolition; 818 12. New construction; and 819 13. Installation of an awning over a window or door. 820 2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from obtaining a Certificate of 821 Appropriateness: 822 823 a. Installation of storm windows; 824 b. Landscaping that: 825 826 (1) Complies with the standards of this title; 827 (2) Does not include a wall fence or grade changes; and 828 (3) Is not an attribute that is a character defining feature of the property or 829 streetscape; 830 831 c. Painting of surfaces that does not include unpainted stone, brick or cement; 832 833 d. Plaques, boxes, and other similar objects that measure 18 inches or less in any 834 dimension, contain no electrical components, and are attached to exterior finish 835 material or mounted through mortar joints when on a masonry wall; 836 22 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 837 e. Electrical, gas, or water meters or outlets, including electric vehicle charging 838 outlets, that are in a location that is not visible from the public right of way; 839 840 f. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems that do not require new conduit 841 and are not visible from the public right of way; and 842 843 g. Solar energy collection systems meeting the priority locations outlined in 844 Subsections 21A.40.190.B.3.a through 21A.40.190.B.3.c. 845 846 F. Procedure Ffor Issuance oOf Certificate oOf Appropriateness: 847 848 1. Administrative Authority Decision: The following may be decided by the planning 849 director or designee: Certain types of construction or demolition may be approved 850 administratively subject to the following procedures: 851 a. Types Of Construction: The following may be approved by administrative 852 decision: 853 a. (1)Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, 854 and/or structure; 855 b. (2)Alteration of or addition to a noncontributing site building or structure; 856 c. (3)Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building 857 or structure; 858 d. (4) Demolition of an accessory building or structure; and 859 e. (5) Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure.; and 860 (6) Installation of solar energy collection systems pursuant to 861 section 21A.40.190 of this title. 862 b. Submission Of Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness 863 shall be made on a form prepared by the Planning Director or designee, and shall 864 be submitted to the Planning Division. The Planning Director shall make a 865 determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title., and shall 866 forward the application for review and decision. 867 c. Materials Submitted With Application: The application shall include photographs, 868 construction drawings, and other documentation such as an architectural or 869 massing model, window frame sections, and samples and any further information 870 or documentation as the Zoning Administrator deems necessary in order to fully 871 consider and analyze the application. deemed necessary to consider the 872 application properly and completely. 873 d. Fees: No application fee will be required for a certificate of appropriateness that is 874 administratively approved. 875 e. Notice Of Application For Demolition Of A Noncontributing Building Or 876 Structure: An application for demolition of a noncontributing building or structure 23 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 877 shall require notice for determination of noncontributing sites pursuant to chapter 878 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees 879 established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. 880 f. Standards Of Approval: The application shall be reviewed according to the 881 standards set forth in subsections G and H of this section, whichever is applicable. 882 g. Review And Decision By The Planning Director: On the basis of written findings 883 of fact, the Planning Director or the Planning Director’s designee shall either 884 approve, or conditionally approve, the certificate of appropriateness based on the 885 standards in subsections G and H of this section, whichever is applicable, within 886 thirty (30) days following receipt of a completed application. The decision of the 887 Planning Director shall become effective at the time the decision is made. 888 h. Referral Of Application By Planning Director To Historic Landmark 889 Commission: The Planning Director may refer any application to the Historic 890 Landmark Commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance 891 of change to the landmark site or contributing building in the H Historic 892 Preservation Overlay District, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding 893 architectural, construction or preservation issues, or if the application does not 894 meet the standards of review. 895 2. Historic Landmark Commission Authority: The following Certain types of 896 construction, demolition and relocation shall only be decided approved by the 897 Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission subject to the following procedures: 898 899 a. Types Of Construction: The following shall be reviewed by the Historic 900 Landmark Commission: 901 a. (1)Substantial alteration or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, 902 building, and/or structure; 903 b. (2) New construction of principal building in the H Historic Preservation Overlay 904 District; 905 c. (3) Relocation of landmark site or contributing principal building; 906 d. (4) Demolition of landmark site or contributing principal building; 907 e. Economic hardship determination; 908 f. Reconstruction of a carriage house on a landmark site; and 909 g. (5) Applications for administrative approval referred by the Pplanning Ddirector.; 910 and 911 (6) Installation of solar energy collection systems on the front facade of the 912 principal building in a location most compatible with the character defining 913 features of the home pursuant to section 21A.40.190 of this title. 914 (7) Reconstruction of a carriage house on a landmark site. 915 916 3b. Submission oOf Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness shall 917 be made on an application form prepared by the zoning administrator and 24 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 918 accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee 919 schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all mailing fees 920 established for required public noticing. the Planning Director or designee, and shall 921 be submitted to the Planning Division. The Planning Director shall make a 922 determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title., and shall 923 forward the application for review and decision. The procedure for an application for 924 a certificate of appropriateness shall be the same as specified in subsection F1b of this 925 section. 926 a. General Application Requirements: A complete application shall include the 927 following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: 928 929 (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest 930 in the subject property; 931 932 (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the 933 applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; 934 935 (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; 936 937 (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets 938 review standards with citation of supporting adopted city design guidelines; 939 940 (5) Current and historic photographs of the property 941 942 (6) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following 943 information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, 944 alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed 945 buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash 946 receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for 947 project evaluation; 948 949 (7) Elevation drawings and details for all impacted facades; 950 951 (8) Illustrative photos and or samples of all proposed façade materials; 952 953 (9) Building, wall, and window section drawings; 954 955 (10) Any further information or documentation as the zoning administrator deems 956 necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. 957 958 b. New Construction Application Requirements: In addition to the general 959 application requirements listed above, applications for new construction of a 960 primary structure shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the 961 zoning administrator: 25 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 962 c. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the 963 Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible 964 for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required 965 by chapter 21A.10 of this title. 966 d. Materials Submitted With Application: An application shall be made on a form 967 provided by the Planning Director and shall be submitted to the Planning Division 968 in accordance with subsection F1c of this section, however specific requirements 969 for new construction shall include the following information unless deemed 970 unnecessary by the Zoning Administrator: 971 (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest 972 in the subject property; 973 (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the 974 applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; 975 (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; 976 (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets 977 review standards with citation of supporting adopted City design guidelines; 978 (1) (5)A context plan showing property lines, building footprints, front yard 979 setbacks, adjacent streets and alleys, historic district boundaries, 980 contributing/noncontributing structures and landmark sites; 981 982 (2) (6) A streetscape study which includes height measurements for each primary 983 structure on the block face; 984 (7) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following 985 information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, 986 alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed 987 buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash 988 receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for 989 project evaluation; 990 (8) Elevation drawings and details for all facades; 991 (9) Illustrative photos and/or samples of all proposed facade materials; 992 (10) Building, wall, and window section drawings; 993 (3) (11) Renderings 3D models that show the new construction in relation to 994 neighboring buildings; and 995 (4) (12) Renderings 3D models that show the new construction from the 996 pedestrian perspective.; and 997 (13) Any further information or documentation as the Zoning Administrator 998 deems necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. 999 4e. Notice: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness are subject to the notification 1000 requirements of Chapter 2.60 of this code. shall require notice pursuant to chapter 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1001 21A.10 of this title. An application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition 1002 of a noncontributing building or structure shall require notice pursuant to Chapter 1003 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees 1004 established for providing the public notice required by Chapters 2.60 and 21A.10 of 1005 this title. 1006 f. Public Hearing: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall require a 1007 public hearing pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title. 1008 5g. Standards fFor Approval: The Aapplications for a certificate of appropriateness shall 1009 be reviewed according to the standards set forth in sSubsections G through KM of 1010 this section, whichever are applicable. 1011 6. Administrative Decisions: The planning director or designee shall approve, 1012 conditionally approve, or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness 1013 based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the planning director or designee 1014 shall become effective upon issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. 1015 a. Referral of Application to Historic Landmark Commission: The planning director 1016 or designee may refer any application to the historic landmark commission due to 1017 the complexity of the application, the significance of change to the structure or 1018 site, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding architectural or other 1019 preservation issues. 1020 7h. Review And Decision By The Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: The 1021 Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall hold a public hearing to review the 1022 application in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 1023 21A.10 of this title. make a decision at a regularly scheduled meeting, following 1024 receipt of a completed application. The historic landmark commission shall approve, 1025 conditionally approve, or deny the application based upon written findings of fact. 1026 The decision of the historic landmark commission shall become effective at the time 1027 the decision is made. Following a decision from the historic landmark commission to 1028 approve a certificate of appropriateness, the planning director or designee shall issue 1029 a certificate of appropriateness after all conditions of approval are met except for 1030 demolition of contributing principal buildings and landmark sites as outlined in 1031 Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. 1032 1033 8. Requirements for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: The certificate of 1034 appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building or landmark site 1035 shall not be issued until the following criteria is satisfied: 1036 1037 a. The appeal period associated with the approval has expired. 1038 1039 b. The landmark commission has granted approval for a new building that will 1040 replace the landmark site or contributing principal building to be demolished. The 1041 requirement for replacing the contributing principal building or landmark site with 1042 a new building may be waived by the historic landmark commission if a new 27 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1043 development or redevelopment plan that includes the principal building to be 1044 demolished is approved by the historic landmark commission. 1045 1046 c. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued simultaneously 1047 with the certificate of appropriateness and building permits for the replacement 1048 building. 1049 1050 9. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for 1051 demolition, the property shall not be removed from the H Historic Preservation 1052 Overlay District until the building has been demolished and revocation of the 1053 designation of a landmark site has been approved in accordance with Section 1054 21A.51.050, Local Historic Amendments Process. 1055 1056 10. Exceptions of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of Hazardous Buildings: 1057 A hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the 1058 building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent 1059 hazard to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building 1060 official shall notify the planning director for consultation and of the final decision. 1061 1062 11. Expiration of Approvals: No certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for a period 1063 of longer than one (1) year unless a building permit has been issued or complete 1064 building plans have been submitted to the Salt Lake City Division of Building 1065 Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 1066 completion; or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the historic landmark 1067 commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the planning director or 1068 designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) 1069 days prior to the one (1) year time period. 1070 1071 (1) After reviewing all materials submitted for the case, the recommendation of 1072 the Planning Division and conducting a field inspection, if necessary, the 1073 Historic Landmark Commission shall make written findings of fact based on 1074 the standards of approval as outlined in this subsection F through subsection K 1075 of this section, whichever are applicable. 1076 (2) On the basis of its written findings of fact the Historic Landmark 1077 Commission shall either approve, deny or conditionally approve the certificate 1078 of appropriateness. 1079 (3) The decision of the Historic Landmark Commission shall become effective at 1080 the time the decision is made. Demolition permits for landmark sites or 1081 contributing principal buildings shall not be issued until the appeal period has 1082 expired. 28 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1083 (4) Written notice of the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission on the 1084 application, including a copy of the findings of fact, shall be made pursuant to 1085 the provisions of section 21A.10.030 of this title. 1086 12i. Appeal oOf Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: Any person adversely 1087 affected by a final decision of the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or in the case 1088 of administrative decisions, the planning director or designee, may file an appeal in 1089 accordance with the provisions of cChapter 21A.16 of this title. 1090 G. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Alteration oOf aA Landmark Site oOr 1091 Contributing Structure Including New Construction oOf aAn Accessory Structure: In 1092 considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark 1093 site or contributing structure, or new construction of an accessory structure associated 1094 with a landmark site or contributing structure, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 1095 the Pplanning Ddirector, for administrative decisions, shall, using the adopted design 1096 guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, find that the project substantially complies with 1097 all of the following general standards: that pertain to the application and that the decision 1098 is in the best interest of the City: 1099 1100 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires 1101 minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and 1102 environment; 1103 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of 1104 historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall 1105 be avoided; 1106 3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. 1107 Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of 1108 history or architecture are not allowed; 1109 4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right 1110 shall be retained and preserved; 1111 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of 1112 craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved; 1113 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever 1114 feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the 1115 material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. 1116 Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate 1117 duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather 1118 than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from 1119 other structures or objects; 1120 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic 1121 materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be 1122 undertaken using the gentlest means possible; 1123 8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be 1124 discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, 1125 historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with 29 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1126 the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or 1127 environment; 1128 9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that 1129 if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form 1130 and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be 1131 differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and 1132 architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its 1133 environment; 1134 10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following: 1135 a. Aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl cladding; and when applied directly to an original 1136 or historic material. 1137 b. Vinyl fencing. 1138 1139 11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a 1140 landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible 1141 from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the 1142 landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the 1143 standards outlined in cChapter 21A.46 of this title. 1144 1145 H. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness Involving New Construction oOr 1146 Alteration oOf aA Noncontributing Structure: In considering an application for a 1147 certificate of appropriateness involving new construction of a principal building, or 1148 alterations of noncontributing structures, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 1149 Pplanning Ddirector when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing 1150 structure, shall, using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, 1151 determine whether the project substantially complies with each of the following standards 1152 that pertain to the application to ensure that the proposed project fits into the established 1153 context in ways that respect and contribute to the evolution of Salt Lake City’s 1154 architectural and cultural traditions: 1155 1156 1. Settlement Patterns aAnd Neighborhood Character: 1157 1158 a. Block aAnd Street Patterns: The design of the project preserves and reflects the 1159 historic block, street, and alley patterns that give the district its unique character. 1160 Changes to the block and street pattern may be considered when advocated by an 1161 adopted Ccity plan. 1162 b. Lot aAnd Site Patterns: The design of the project preserves the pattern of lot and 1163 building site sizes that create the urban character of the historic context and the 1164 block face. Changes to the lot and site pattern may be considered when advocated 1165 by an adopted Ccity plan. 1166 c. The Public Realm: The project relates to adjacent streets and engages with 1167 sidewalks in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the 1168 block face. Projects should maintain the depth of yard and height of principal 30 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1169 elevation of those existing on the block face in order to support consistency in the 1170 definition of public and semi-public spaces. 1171 d. Building Placement: Buildings are placed such that the project maintains and 1172 reflects the historic pattern of setbacks and building depth established within the 1173 historic context and the block face. Buildings should maintain the setback 1174 demonstrated by existing buildings of that type constructed in the district or site’s 1175 period of significance. 1176 e. Building Orientation: The building is designed such that principal entrances and 1177 pathways are oriented such that they address the street in the pattern established in 1178 the historic context and the block face. 1179 1180 2. Site Access, Parking, aAnd Services: 1181 a. Site Access: The design of the project allows for site access that is similar, in 1182 form and function, with patterns common in the historic context and the block 1183 face. 1184 1185 (1) Pedestrian: Safe pedestrian access is provided through architecturally 1186 highlighted entrances and walkways, consistent with patterns common in the 1187 historic context and the block face. 1188 (2) Vehicular: Vehicular access is located in the least obtrusive manner possible. 1189 Where possible, garage doors and parking should be located to the rear or to 1190 the side of the building. 1191 1192 b. Site aAnd Building Services aAnd Utilities: Utilities and site/building services 1193 (such as HVAC systems, venting fans, and dumpsters) are located such that they 1194 are to the rear of the building or on the roof and screened from public spaces and 1195 public properties. 1196 1197 3. Landscape aAnd Lighting: 1198 a. Grading oOf Land: The site’s landscape, such as grading and retaining walls, 1199 addresses the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic 1200 context and the block face. 1201 b. Landscape Structures: Landscape structures, such as arbors, walls, fences, address 1202 the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and 1203 the block face. 1204 c. Lighting: Where appropriate lighting is used to enhance significant elements of 1205 the design and reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. 1206 1207 4. Building Form aAnd Scale: 1208 a. Character oOf Tthe Street Block: The design of the building reflects the historic 1209 character of the street facade in terms of scale, composition, and modeling. 1210 31 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1211 (1) Height: The height of the project reflects the character of the historic context 1212 and the block face. Projects taller than those existing on the block face step 1213 back their upper floors to present a base that is in scale with the historic 1214 context and the block face. 1215 1216 (2) Width: The width of the project reflects the character of the historic context 1217 and the block face. Projects wider than those existing on the block face 1218 modulate the facade to express a series of volumes in scale with the historic 1219 context and the block face. 1220 1221 (3) Massing: The shape, form, and proportion of buildings, reflects the character 1222 of the historic context and the block face. 1223 1224 (4) Roof Forms: The building incorporates roof shapes that reflect forms found in 1225 the historic context and the block face. 1226 1227 5. Building Character: 1228 a. Facade Articulation aAnd Proportion: The design of the project reflects patterns 1229 of articulation and proportion established in the historic context and the block 1230 face. As appropriate, facade articulations reflect those typical of other buildings 1231 on the block face. These articulations are of similar dimension to those found 1232 elsewhere in the context, but have a depth of not less than twelve inches (12”). 1233 1234 (1) Rhythm oOf Openings: The facades are designed to reflect the rhythm of 1235 openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic 1236 context and the block face. 1237 1238 (2) Proportion aAnd Scale oOf Openings: The facades are designed using 1239 openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) of similar proportion and 1240 scale to that established in the historic context and the block face. 1241 1242 (3) Ratio oOf Wall tTo Openings: Facades are designed to reflect the ratio of wall 1243 to openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the 1244 historic context and the block face. 1245 1246 (4) Balconies, Porches, aAnd External Stairs: The project, as appropriate, 1247 incorporates entrances, balconies, porches, stairways, and other projections 1248 that reflect patterns established in the historic context and the block face. 1249 1250 6. Building Materials, Elements aAnd Detailing: 1251 a. Materials: Building facades, other than windows and doors, incorporate no less 1252 than eighty percent (80%) durable material such as, but not limited to, wood, 32 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1253 brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and/or cut stone. These materials 1254 reflect those found elsewhere in the district and/or setting in terms of scale and 1255 character. 1256 b. Materials Oon Street-Facing Facades: The following materials are not considered 1257 to be appropriate and are prohibited for use on facades which face a public street: 1258 vinyl siding and aluminum siding. 1259 c. Windows: Windows and other openings are incorporated in a manner that reflects 1260 patterns, materials, profile, and detailing established in the district and/or setting. 1261 d. Architectural Elements aAnd Details: The design of the building features 1262 architectural elements and details that reflect those characteristic of the district 1263 and/or setting. 1264 1265 7. Signage Location: Locations for signage are provided such that they are an integral 1266 part of the site and architectural design and are complementary to the principal 1267 structure. 1268 1269 I. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Relocation oOf Landmark Site oOr 1270 Contributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness 1271 for relocation of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the Hhistoric Llandmark 1272 Ccommission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following 1273 standards: 1274 1275 1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure; 1276 1277 2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district 1278 or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district; 1279 1280 3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance 1281 of the structure; 1282 1283 4. The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness 1284 of the building or structure; 1285 1286 5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being 1287 stored; and 1288 1289 6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation 1290 has occurred is provided to the Ccity. The financial guarantee shall be in a form 1291 approved by the Ccity Aattorney, in an amount determined by the Pplanning 1292 Ddirector sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as 1293 approved by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission and restore the grade and 1294 landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is 1295 to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs. 1296 33 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1297 J. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition oOf Landmark Site: In 1298 considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a 1299 landmark site, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall only approve the application 1300 upon finding that the project fully complies with one of the following standards: 1301 1302 1. The demolition is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety pursuant to 1303 sSubsection 21A.34.020.F.10 O of this section; or 1304 1305 2. A determination of economic hardship has been granted by the Hhistoric Llandmark 1306 Ccommission pursuant to the provisions of sSubsection 21A.34.020.L of this section. 1307 1308 K. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition oOf aA Contributing 1309 Principal Building In An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: When considering a 1310 request for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing 1311 principal building, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall determine whether the 1312 request substantially complies with the following standards: 1313 1314 1. Standards For Approval Of A Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition: 1315 1a. The historic integrity of the site as defined in subsection Section 21A.62.040 C15b of 1316 this section is no longer evident and the site no longer meets the definition of a 1317 contributing building or structure in Section 21A.62.040; 1318 2b.The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District 1319 would not be negatively materially affected if the contributing principal building were 1320 to be demolished; 1321 3c. The demolition would not create a material adverse effect on the concentration of 1322 historic resources used to define the boundaries or maintain the integrity of the 1323 district; 1324 4d.The base zoning of the site does not permit land uses that would allow the adaptive 1325 reuse of the contributing principal building; 1326 5e. The contributing principal building has not suffered from willful wilful neglect, as 1327 evidenced by the following: 1328 a. (1)WillfulWilful or negligent acts that have caused significant deterioration of the 1329 structural integrity of the contributing principal building to the point that the 1330 building fails to substantially conform to applicable standards of the Sstate 1331 Cconstruction Ccode, 1332 b. (2)Failure to perform routine and appropriate maintenance and repairs to maintain 1333 the structural integrity of the contributing principal building, or 1334 c. (3)Failure to secure and board the contributing principal building, if vacant, per 1335 sSection 18.64.045 of this Ccode. 34 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1336 2. Historic Landmark Commission Determination Of Compliance With Standards Of 1337 Approval: If the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the request for a 1338 certificate of appropriateness for demolition substantially complies with the standards 1339 in subsection K1 of this section, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall 1340 approve the request for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. If the Historic 1341 Landmark Commission does not find that the request for a certificate of 1342 appropriateness for demolition substantially complies with the standards in subsection 1343 K1 of this section, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall deny the request for 1344 a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 1345 L. Economic Hardship Determination: Upon denial of a certificate of appropriateness for 1346 demolition of a contributing principal building by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, 1347 the owner and/or owner’s representative will have one year from the end of the appeal 1348 period as described in cChapter 21A.16 of this title, to submit an application for 1349 determination of economic hardship. In the case of a landmark site, an application for 1350 determination of economic hardship shall can be submitted at any the same time as an 1351 application for demolition of a landmark site necessary to meet the standard of 1352 sSubsection 21A.34.020.J.2 of this section. 1353 1354 1. Application fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: An application for a 1355 determination of economic hardship shall be made on a form provided by the zoning 1356 administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City 1357 consolidated fee schedule. Planning Director and shall be submitted to the Planning 1358 Division. 1359 1360 2. Evidence fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: The burden of proof is on the 1361 owner or owner’s representative to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an 1362 economic hardship. Any finding in support of economic hardship shall be based 1363 solely on the hardship of the property. Evidence may include, but is not limited to: 1364 1365 a. Physical cCondition of the property at time of purchase and the applicant’s plans 1366 for the property at time of purchase. 1367 b. The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to 1368 the following: 1369 1370 (1) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom 1371 purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between 1372 applicant, and the person from whom the property was purchased,; 1373 (2) The annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous 1374 three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous 1375 three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and 1376 after debt service, if any, for the previous three (3) years,; 1377 35 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1378 (3) Real Eestate Ttaxes for the previous three (3) years by the Salt Lake County 1379 Assessor,; 1380 (4) An appraisal, no older than six (6) months at the time of application for 1381 determination of economic hardship conducted by an MAI certified appraiser 1382 licensed within the State of Utah. Also all appraisals obtained within the 1383 previous three (3) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the 1384 purchase, financing or ownership of the property,; 1385 (5) The fair market value of the property taking into consideration the H Historic 1386 Preservation Overlay District,; and 1387 (6) For non-residential or multifamily properties, any Sstate or Ffederal Iincome 1388 Ttax returns on or relating to the property for the previous three (3) years. 1389 1390 c. The marketability of the property for sale or lease, as determined by any listing of 1391 the property for sale or lease, and price asked and offers received, if any, within 1392 the previous two (2) years. This determination can include testimony and relevant 1393 documents regarding: 1394 1395 (1) Any real estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property,; 1396 (2) Reasonableness of the price in terms of fair market value or rent sought by the 1397 applicant,; and 1398 (3) Any advertisements placed for the sale or rental of the property. 1399 1400 d. The feasibility of alternative uses for the property as considered in relation to the 1401 following: 1402 1403 (1) Report from a licensed engineer or architect with demonstrated experience in 1404 rehabilitation of older buildings as to the structural soundness of any building 1405 on the property,; 1406 (2) An estimate of the cost of the proposed construction or alteration, including 1407 the cost of demolition and removal, and potential cost savings for reuse of 1408 materials,; 1409 (3) The estimated market values of the property in current condition, after 1410 completion of the demolition; and after renovation of the existing property for 1411 continued use,; and 1412 (4) The testimony of an experienced professional with demonstrated experience 1413 in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the economic feasibility of 1414 rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building on the property. An experienced 1415 professional may include, but is not limited to, an architect, developer, real 1416 estate consultant, appraiser, or any other professional experienced in 1417 preservation or rehabilitation of older buildings and licensed within the State 1418 of Utah. 1419 36 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1420 e. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through Ffederal, 1421 Sstate, Ccity, or private programs. 1422 f. Description of past and current use. 1423 g. An itemized report that identifies what is deficient if the building does not meet 1424 minimum Ccity Bbuilding Ccode standards or violations of this Ccode and 1425 whether any exceptions within Chapter 12 Historic Buildings of the IEBC, or its 1426 successor, could be used to resolve those deficiencies. 1427 h. Consideration of map amendment, conditional use, special exception or other land 1428 use processes to alleviate hardship. 1429 1430 3. Procedure fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: The Planning Director shall 1431 appoint a qualified expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or 1432 testimony to the Historic Landmark Commission concerning the value of the property 1433 and whether or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. The 1434 extent of the authority of the Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert is limited 1435 to rendering advice and testimony to the Historic Landmark Commission. The 1436 Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert has no decision-making capacity. The 1437 Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert should have considerable and 1438 demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic properties, 1439 real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or law. The Historic 1440 Landmark Commission may also consider other expert testimony upon reviewing the 1441 evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the advice/testimony of the Planning 1442 Director’s appointed qualified expert as necessary. 1443 1444 a. Appointment of Qualified Expert: The planning director shall appoint a qualified 1445 expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or testimony to the 1446 historic landmark commission concerning the value of the property and whether 1447 or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. 1448 1449 (1) The extent of the Authority: The planning director’s appointed qualified 1450 expert is limited to rendering advice and testimony to the historic landmark 1451 commission and has no decision-making capacity. 1452 (2) The planning director’s appointed qualified expert shall have considerable and 1453 demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic 1454 properties, real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or 1455 law. 1456 (3) The historic landmark commission may also consider other expert testimony 1457 upon reviewing the evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the 1458 advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert as 1459 necessary. 1460 1461 ba. Review Oof Evidence: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall hold a public 1462 hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 37 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1463 21A.10 of this title shall to consider the evidence submitted, an application and 1464 the advice and /testimony of the Pplanning Ddirector’s appointed qualified expert. 1465 for determination of economic hardship after receipt of a complete application. 1466 1467 cb. Finding Oof Economic Hardship: If after reviewing all of the evidence presented by 1468 the applicant and the advice/testimony of the Pplanning Ddirector’s appointed 1469 qualified expert, and if the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission finds that the applicant 1470 has presented sufficient information supporting a determination of economic 1471 hardship, then the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall approve the issue a 1472 certificate of appropriateness for demolition. in accordance with subsections M and N 1473 of this section. In order to show that all beneficial or economically viable use cannot 1474 be obtained, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission must find that all of the following 1475 are met: 1476 1477 (1) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be economically 1478 used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if 1479 rehabilitated; 1480 (2) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any 1481 reasonable beneficial use in its present condition or if rehabilitated; and 1482 (3) Bona fide efforts during the previous year to sell or lease the contributing 1483 principal building or landmark site at a reasonable price have been 1484 unsuccessful. 1485 1486 (1) For demolition of non-residential or multifamily property: 1487 1488 (A)The contributing principal building or landmark site currently cannot be 1489 economically used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present 1490 condition. 1491 1492 (2) For demolition of a residential property (single or two family): 1493 1494 (A)The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any 1495 beneficial use in its present condition. 1496 dc. Certificate oOf Appropriateness fFor Demolition: If the Hhistoric Llandmark 1497 Ccommission finds an economic hardship, a certificate of appropriateness for 1498 demolition shall be issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. valid 1499 for one year. Extensions of time for an approved certificate of appropriateness for 1500 demolition associated with economic hardship shall be subject to 1501 subsection 21A.10.010D of this title. 1502 ed. Denial Oof Economic Hardship: If the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission does 1503 not find an economic hardship, then the application for a certificate of 1504 appropriateness for demolition shall be denied. No further economic hardship 1505 determination applications may be considered for the subject property for three 1506 (3) years from the date of the final decision of the Hhistoric Llandmark 1507 Ccommission. The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission may waive this restriction 38 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1508 if the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission finds there are circumstances sufficient 1509 to warrant a new hearing other than the re-sale of the property or those caused by 1510 the negligence or intentional acts of the owner. 1511 1512 e. Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic 1513 Landmark Commission may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions 1514 of chapter 21A.16 of this title. 1515 M. Reconstruction of a Carriage House on a Landmark Site: 1516 1. Applicability: The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the 1517 following criteria are satisfied: 1518 1519 a. The property and address are a landmark site. For the purpose of this section, any 1520 site that has been further subdivided since the construction of the last principal 1521 building on the site shall be considered part of the landmark site. 1522 b. Documentation has been provided that indicates a carriage house associated with 1523 the historic period of the landmark site existed on the site. Documentation may 1524 include any property related record, prior survey, photographs, site plans, or 1525 similar records. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the necessary 1526 documentation and justification for the proposed dimensions and details of the 1527 carriage house that is proposed to be reconstructed. Documentation shall provide 1528 sufficient detail to estimate the approximate details of the carriage house, 1529 including: 1530 1531 (1) The approximate location of the carriage house on the site and estimated 1532 setbacks; 1533 (2) The approximate footprint shape and size; 1534 (3) The approximate shape, slope, and details of the roof of the structure proposed 1535 to be reconstructed; 1536 (4) The approximate height of the structure in feet, based on the scale of existing 1537 buildings or structures that are also visible in historic documentation or the 1538 dimensions of the historic building materials, if available. The approximate 1539 height shall include wall height and roof height; and 1540 (5) The location, arrangement, size, and details of any window or door, including 1541 carriage entries. 1542 1543 2. Application Requirements: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house 1544 shall be considered an application for new construction and include all the application 1545 requirements for new construction in this section and documentation requirements in 1546 Subsection 1.b above. 1547 3. Approval Standards: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall be 1548 subject to the following standards. An application shall be approved if the following 1549 standards are complied with: 1550 39 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1551 a. Reconstruction shall only be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portion of a 1552 property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate 1553 reconstruction with minimal conjecture; 1554 b. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic 1555 materials, features, and spatial relationships; 1556 c. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and 1557 elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on 1558 conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic 1559 properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- 1560 surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture; 1561 d. Proposed designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed or 1562 considered; 1563 e. The proposed carriage house shall match the footprint size, shape, and location on 1564 the property based on the historic documentation provided by the applicant. 1565 Historic documentation shall be used to approximate the location and dimensions 1566 of the structure; 1567 f. The proposed carriage house shall match the approximate roof shape of the 1568 original carriage house; 1569 g. The entryways into the house, including reconstructed entryways for carriages, 1570 shall approximately match historic entryways commonly found on carriage 1571 houses from the same era as the original carriage house; and 1572 h. Impacts to adjacent properties, including but not limited to solar access, noise, 1573 light trespass, refuse storage, and mechanical equipment locations, parking 1574 locations, have been mitigate or can be mitigated through the site layout, 1575 appropriate buffering, and/or building designs. 1576 1577 4. Complying With Additional Codes: An application approved under this section shall 1578 comply with all applicable codes, regulations and engineering standards that have 1579 been adopted by the State of Utah or the city. 1580 5. Subdivision Prohibited: Further subdivision of the property after approval of a 1581 reconstruction under this section is prohibited and portions of Section 21A.38.060 1582 authorizing subdivisions of lots with more than two principal buildings shall not be 1583 applicable. 1584 6. Allowed Uses After Reconstruction: The following uses shall be allowed in a 1585 reconstructed carriage house approved under this section: 1586 1587 a. A single family dwelling, regardless of lot area, lot width or street frontage; 1588 b. Any accessory use authorized in the underlying zoning district or overlay district; 1589 or 1590 c. Accessory dwelling units subject to the applicable regulations for accessory 1591 dwelling units. 1592 1593 7. Modifications Authorized: In considering a proposal to reconstruct a carriage house 1594 under this section, the historic landmark commission may modify the following standards 1595 upon finding that the proposal complies with the applicable standards: 1596 40 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1597 a. Minimum lot area when the lot does not contain the minimum lot area for an 1598 additional dwelling unit; 1599 b. Modifications to Sections 21A.36.010 and 21A.36.020; and 1600 c. Any authorized modification identified in Section 21A.06.050. 1601 1602 8. Updated Intensive Level Survey Required: If approved, the applicant shall provide the 1603 city and updated intensive level survey to document the changes to the site. 1604 1605 M. Requirements For Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition: No certificate of 1606 appropriateness for demolition shall be issued unless the landmark site or contributing 1607 principal building to be demolished is to be replaced with a new building that meets the 1608 following criteria. 1609 1610 1. The replacement building satisfies all applicable zoning and H Historic Preservation 1611 Overlay District standards for new construction. 1612 2. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition is issued simultaneously with the 1613 appropriate approvals and permits for the replacement building. 1614 3. Submittal of documentation to the Planning Division of the landmark site or 1615 contributing principal building in a historic district. Documentation shall include 1616 photos of the subject property and a site plan. Documentation may also include 1617 drawings and/or written data if available. 1618 1619 a. Photographs. Digital or print photographs. Views should include: 1620 (1) Exterior views; 1621 (2) Close-ups of significant exterior features; 1622 (3) Views that show the relationship of the primary building to the overall site, 1623 accessory structures and/or site features. 1624 1625 b. Site plan showing the location of the building and site features. 1626 1627 N. Revocation Of The Designation Of A Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for 1628 demolition, the property shall not be removed from the Salt Lake City Register of 1629 Cultural Resources (see subsection D of this section). 1630 1631 O. Exceptions Of Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition Of Hazardous Buildings: A 1632 hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the 1633 building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent hazard 1634 to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building official shall 1635 notify the Planning Director of the decision. 1636 1637 P. Expiration Of Approvals: Subject to an extension of time granted by the Historic 1638 Landmark Commission, or in the case of an administratively approved certificate of 1639 appropriateness, by the Planning Director or designee, no certificate of appropriateness 41 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1640 shall be valid for a period of longer than one year unless a building permit has been 1641 issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Division of Building 1642 Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 1643 completion, or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the Historic Landmark 1644 Commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the Planning Director or 1645 designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) days 1646 prior to the twelve (12) month time period. 1647 1648 Q. Reconstruction of a Carriage House in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District: 1649 1. Applicability: The reconstruction of a historic carriage house is allowed if the 1650 following criteria are satisfied: 1651 1652 a. The property and address are a landmark site. For the purpose of this section, any 1653 site that has been further subdivided since the construction of the last principal 1654 building on the site shall be considered part of the landmark site. 1655 b. Documentation has been provided that indicates a carriage house associated with 1656 the historic period of the landmark site existed on the site. Documentation may 1657 include any property related record, prior survey, photographs, site plans, or 1658 similar records. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the necessary 1659 documentation and justification for the proposed dimensions and details of the 1660 carriage house that is proposed to be reconstructed. Documentation shall provide 1661 sufficient detail to estimate the approximate details of the carriage house, 1662 including: 1663 1664 (1) The approximate location of the carriage house on the site and estimated 1665 setbacks; 1666 (2) The approximate footprint shape and size; 1667 (3) The approximate shape, slope, and details of the roof of the structure proposed 1668 to be reconstructed; 1669 (4) The approximate height of the structure in feet, based on the scale of existing 1670 buildings or structures that are also visible in historic documentation or the 1671 dimensions of the historic building materials, if available. The approximate 1672 height shall include wall height and roof height; and 1673 (5) The location, arrangement, size, and details of any window or door, including 1674 carriage entries. 1675 1676 2. Application Requirements: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house 1677 shall be considered an application for new construction and include all the application 1678 requirements for new construction in this section and documentation requirements in 1679 Subsection 1.b above. 1680 3. Approval Standards: An application to reconstruct a historic carriage house shall be 1681 subject to the following standards. An application shall be approved if the following 1682 standards are complied with: 1683 42 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1684 a. Reconstruction shall only be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portion of a 1685 property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate 1686 reconstruction with minimal conjecture; 1687 b. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic 1688 materials, features, and spatial relationships; 1689 c. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and 1690 elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on 1691 conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic 1692 properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- 1693 surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture; 1694 d. Proposed designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed or 1695 considered; 1696 e. The proposed carriage house shall match the footprint size, shape, and location on 1697 the property based on the historic documentation provided by the applicant. 1698 Historic documentation shall be used to approximate the location and dimensions 1699 of the structure; 1700 f. The proposed carriage house shall match the approximate roof shape of the 1701 original carriage house; 1702 g. The entryways into the house, including reconstructed entryways for carriages, 1703 shall approximately match historic entryways commonly found on carriage 1704 houses from the same era as the original carriage house; and 1705 h. Impacts to adjacent properties, including but not limited to solar access, noise, 1706 light trespass, refuse storage, and mechanical equipment locations, parking 1707 locations, have been mitigate or can be mitigated through the site layout, 1708 appropriate buffering, and/or building designs. 1709 1710 4. Complying With Additional Codes: An application approved under this section shall 1711 comply with all applicable codes, regulations and engineering standards that have 1712 been adopted by the State of Utah or the city. 1713 5. Subdivision Prohibited: Further subdivision of the property after approval of a 1714 reconstruction under this section is prohibited and portions of Section 21A.38.060 1715 authorizing subdivisions of lots with more than two principal buildings shall not be 1716 applicable. 1717 6. Allowed Uses After Reconstruction: The following uses shall be allowed in a 1718 reconstructed carriage house approved under this section: 1719 1720 a. A single family dwelling, regardless of lot area, lot width or street frontage; 1721 b. Any accessory use authorized in the underlying zoning district or overlay district; or 1722 c. Accessory dwelling units subject to the applicable regulations for accessory dwelling 1723 units. 1724 1725 7. Modifications Authorized: In considering a proposal to reconstruct a carriage house 1726 under this section, the historic landmark commission may modify the following standards 1727 upon finding that the proposal complies with the applicable standards: 1728 43 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1729 a. Minimum lot area when the lot does not contain the minimum lot area for an 1730 additional dwelling unit; 1731 b. Modifications to Sections 21A.36.010 and 21A.36.020; and 1732 c. Any authorized modification identified in 21A.06.050. 1733 1734 8. Updated Intensive Level Survey Required: If approved, the applicant shall provide the 1735 city and updated intensive level survey to document the changes to the site. 1736 1737 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.190.B. That 1738 Subsection 21A.40.190.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and 1739 Structures: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and 1740 Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or Landmark Sites) shall be, and hereby is amended to 1741 read as follows: 1742 B. Small Solar Energy Collection Systems aAnd Historic Preservation Overlay Districts Or 1743 Landmark Sites: 1744 1745 1. General: In addition to meeting the standards set forth in this section, all applications to 1746 install a small solar energy collection system within the Historic Preservation Overlay 1747 District shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with Section 1748 21A.34.020 prior to installation. Small solar energy collection systems shall be allowed 1749 in accordance with the location priorities detailed in sSubsection B.3 of this section. If 1750 there is any conflict between the provisions of this sSubsection B, and any other 1751 requirements of this section, the provisions of this sSubsection B shall take precedence. 1752 2. Installation Standards: The small solar energy collection system shall be installed in a 1753 location and manner on the building or lot that is least visible and obtrusive and in such a 1754 way that causes the least impact to the historic integrity and character of the historic 1755 building, structure, site or district while maintaining efficient operation of the solar 1756 device. The system must be installed in such a manner that it can be removed and not 1757 damage the historic building, structure, or site it is associated with. 1758 3. Small Solar Energy Collection System Location Priorities: In approving appropriate 1759 locations and manner of installation, consideration shall include the following locations 1760 in the priority order they are set forth below. The method of installation approved shall be 1761 the least visible from a public right-of-way, not including alleys, and most compatible 1762 with the character defining features of the historic building, structure, or site. Systems 1763 proposed for locations in subsections B3a through B3e of this section, may be reviewed 1764 administratively as set forth in subsection 21A.34.020F1, “Administrative Decision”, of 1765 this title. Systems proposed for locations in subsection B3f of this section, shall be 1766 reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission in accordance with the procedures set 1767 forth in subsection 21A.34.020F2, “Historic Landmark Commission”, of this title. 44 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1768 1769 a. Rear yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. 1770 b. On accessory buildings or structures in a location not readily visible from a public 1771 right-of-way. 1772 c. In a side yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. 1773 d. On the principal building in a location not readily visible from a public right-of- 1774 way. 1775 e. On the principal building in a location that may be visible from a public right-of- 1776 way, but not on the structure’s front facade. 1777 f. On the front facade of the principal building in a location most compatible with 1778 the character defining features of the structure. 1779 1780 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.020. That 1781 Section 21A.50.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Authority) shall be, and 1782 hereby is amended to read as follows: 1783 21A.50.020: AUTHORITY: 1784 1785 The text of this title and the zoning map may be amended by the passage of an ordinance 1786 adopted by the city council in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. 1787 Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Sites are 1788 subject to the procedures in Chapter 21A.51, Local Historic Designations and Amendments. 1789 1790 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.030. That 1791 Section 21A.50.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Initiation) shall be, and 1792 hereby is amended to read as follows: 1793 21A.50.030: INITIATION: 1794 1795 Amendments to the text of this title or to the zoning map may be initiated by filing an 1796 application for an amendment addressed to the planning commission. Applications for 1797 amendments may be initiated by the mayor, the city council, the planning commission, or the 1798 owner of the property included in the application, or the property owner’s authorized agent. 1799 Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or landmark sites or the 1800 Homeless Resource Center Overlay shall be initiated as provided in Chapter 21A.34 of this 1801 title. 1802 45 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1803 SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.040.B That 1804 Section 21A.50.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Fees) shall 1805 be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1806 B. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt 1807 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment 1808 of all fees established for providing the public notice required by cChapter 21A.10 of this 1809 title. Application and noticing fees filed by the city council, planning commission or the 1810 mayor shall not be required. Application and noticing fees filed for designation within an 1811 H historic preservation overlay district or to establish a character conservation district 1812 shall not be required. 1813 1814 1815 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.060 That 1816 Section 21A.50.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Limitation on 1817 Amendments) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1818 21A.50.060: LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS: 1819 1820 A. No application for an amendment to this title shall be considered by the Ccity Ccouncil 1821 or the Pplanning Ccommission within one year of the withdrawal by the applicant or final 1822 decision of the Ccity Ccouncil upon a prior application covering substantially the same 1823 subject or substantially the same property. 1824 B. In the case of a proposed local historic district or thematic designation per section 1825 21A.50.060 of this chapter, if a local historic district or area proposal fails in accordance 1826 with the voting procedures set forth in section 21A.50.060.A11, a resident may not 1827 initiate the creation of a local historic district, area, or thematic designation that includes 1828 more than fifty percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district, 1829 area, or thematic designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the 1830 property owner opinion ballots for the vote were due. 1831 BC. This determination shall be made by the Zzoning Aadministrator upon receipt of an 1832 application pursuant to sSection 21A.50.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not 1833 restrict the Mmayor, the Ccity Ccouncil or the Pplanning Ccommission from proposing 1834 any text amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the districts in this title at any 1835 time. 1836 46 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1837 SECTION 10. Adopting a new Chapter 21A.51 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of 1838 the Salt Lake City Code (Local Historic Designation and Amendments) shall be and hereby is 1839 amended to include a new Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments and shall 1840 read as follows: 1841 Chapter 21A.51 1842 LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATON & AMENDMENTS 1843 21A.51.010: Purpose Statement 1844 21A.51.020: Authority 1845 21A.51.030: Local Historic Designation Process 1846 21A.51.040: Local Historic Designation Criteria 1847 21A.51.050: Existing Local Historic Amendment Process 1848 21A.51.060: Existing Local Historic Amendment Criteria 1849 21A.51.070: Limitations 1850 21A.51.080: Historic Resource Surveys 1851 21A.51.090: Appeal of Decision 1852 1853 21A.51.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: 1854 The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments 1855 to the zoning map related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The H Historic 1856 Preservation Overlay District applies to all properties within the boundaries of a local historic 1857 district, part of a thematic designation, or a landmark site. 1858 21A.51.020: AUTHORITY: 1859 A. Authority: Pursuant to the procedures and standards in this chapter and the standards for 1860 general amendments in Section 21A.50.050, the city council may amend the zoning map 1861 and apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District by the passage of an ordinance 1862 and: 1863 1864 1. Designate a landmark site; 1865 2. Designate as a local historic district; 1866 3. Designate as a thematic designation; 1867 4. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark site, 1868 local historic district or thematic designation; 1869 5. Revoke designation of a landmark site; 1870 6. Adopt comprehensive historic resource surveys and associated reports for new 1871 landmark sites, local historic districts or thematic designations; and 1872 47 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1873 7. Adopt updates to historic resource surveys and associated reports for existing local 1874 historic districts or thematic designations in accordance with the provisions in Section 1875 21A.51.080. 1876 1877 21A.51.030: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS: 1878 Salt Lake City will consider the local designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 1879 thematic designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which 1880 represent significant elements of the city’s prehistory, history, development patterns or 1881 architecture. Local designation must be in the best interest of the city and achieve a 1882 reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the 1883 city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. 1884 A. Process for Designation of a Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: 1885 1886 1. Procedures Required Before an Application Can be Submitted: Prior to the submittal 1887 of an application for the designation or amendment local historic district or thematic 1888 designation, and prior to gathering any signatures for an application, the following 1889 steps must be completed: 1890 1891 a. Pre-application Conference: A potential applicant shall attend a pre-application 1892 conference with the planning director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is 1893 to discuss the merits of the proposed designation and the amendment processes as 1894 outlined in this section. 1895 1896 b. Notification to Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication 1897 conference outlined in Subsection A.1.a of this section, the city shall send by first 1898 class mail a neutral informational pamphlet to owners of record for each property 1899 potentially affected by a forthcoming application. The informational pamphlet 1900 shall be mailed after a potential applicant submits to the city a finalized proposed 1901 boundary of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay 1902 District. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of 1903 the process to create a local historic district or thematic designation and will also 1904 list the pros and cons of a local historic district or thematic designation. Once the 1905 city sends the informational pamphlet, gathering of property owner signatures 1906 may begin per Subsection A.2 of this section. The informational pamphlet sent 1907 shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an application is not filed with the city 1908 within ninety (90) days after the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed, 1909 the city shall close its file on the matter. Any subsequent proposal must begin the 1910 application process again. 1911 1912 2. Application: 1913 48 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1914 a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: The mayor or the city council, by a 1915 majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of a local historic 1916 district or thematic designation. A property owner submitting such application 1917 shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of 1918 the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to 1919 be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 1920 1921 (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be 1922 included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is 1923 signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the 1924 interest in that lot or parcel. 1925 1926 (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the thirty 1927 three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures obtained 1928 for that lot or parcel. 1929 1930 (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent 1931 (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local 1932 historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of 1933 ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet 1934 was mailed as required per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b and the date of the 1935 last required signature. 1936 1937 b. Submittal Requirements: An application shall be made to the zoning administrator 1938 on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator, which shall 1939 include at least the following information unless deemed unnecessary by the 1940 zoning administrator: 1941 1942 (1) Information demonstrating the procedures in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a 1943 and 21A.51.030.A.1.b have been followed; 1944 1945 (2) Information demonstrating the requirements in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.a 1946 have been met; 1947 1948 (3) Street addresses and parcel numbers of all properties included in the proposed 1949 local designation; 1950 1951 (4) Photos of all properties included in the proposed designation; 1952 1953 (5) Narrative demonstrating compliance with the standards and considerations in 1954 Section 21A.51.040; and 1955 49 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1956 (6) Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for 1957 consideration of a particular application. 1958 1959 c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a local historic district or 1960 thematic designation shall not be required. 1961 1962 3. Notice of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the city of an 1963 application for the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation, the 1964 city shall send a notice of designation application letter to owner(s) of record for each 1965 property affected by said application along with a second copy of the informational 1966 pamphlet described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b. In the event that no application 1967 is received following the ninety (90) day period of property owner signature 1968 gathering, the city will send a letter to property owner(s) of record stating that no 1969 application has been filed, and that the city has closed its file on the matter. 1970 1971 4. Planning Director Report to the City Council: Following the receipt by the city of an 1972 application for the designation to a local historic district or thematic designation and 1973 following mailing of the notice of designation application letter described in 1974 Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3, the planning director shall submit a report based on the 1975 following considerations to the city council: 1976 1977 a. Whether a current historic survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State 1978 Historic Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed 1979 for a local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not 1980 available, the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. 1981 1982 b. The city administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine 1983 whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the 1984 planning division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource 1985 analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new local historic district or 1986 thematic designation if the designation is approved by the city council. If 1987 sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed budget. 1988 1989 c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, 1990 objectives and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning 1991 documents. 1992 1993 d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. 1994 1995 e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local 1996 historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent 1997 with the purposes and designation criteria in Section 21A.51.040 and the zoning 1998 map amendment criteria in Section 21A.50.050, “Standards for General 1999 Amendments”, of this title. 50 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2000 2001 f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per Subsection 2002 21A.51.030.A.3 of this section to all property owners within a proposed local 2003 historic district following the preapplication process outlined in Subsections 2004 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b. 2005 2006 5.Notification to Recognized Community Organizations: Notification to recognized 2007 community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this 2008 code. 2009 2010 6. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the planning director’s report 2011 and acceptance of the report by the city council, the planning division will conduct a 2012 community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed 2013 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation about the 2014 following: 2015 2016 a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner 2017 support, the public hearing process, and final decision-making process by the city 2018 council; and 2019 2020 b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic 2021 Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review 2022 process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the 2023 economic hardship process. 2024 2025 7. Open House: The planning division will conduct an open house pursuant to Section 2026 2.60.050. 2027 2028 8. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 2029 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 2030 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 2031 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 2032 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of 2033 some modification of the proposal. 2034 2035 9. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: 2036 2037 a. Following the completion of the historic landmark commission and planning 2038 commission public hearings, the city will deliver property owner opinion ballots 2039 via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the 2040 proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner 2041 opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the city council of property 2042 owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each 2043 individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the 51 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2044 number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property 2045 owner opinion ballot. 2046 2047 (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property 2048 owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; 2049 2050 (2) The city shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot for: 2051 2052 (a) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or 2053 area; or 2054 2055 (b) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the 2056 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and 2057 (c) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the city shall count 2058 a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the property 2059 owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who own at 2060 least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. 2061 b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the 2062 property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the city indicating the 2063 property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. 2064 2065 c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic 2066 district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been 2067 received by the city within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This 2068 follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner 2069 opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the 2070 first property owner opinion ballot. 2071 2072 10. Notification of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public 2073 opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the city will send notice of the results 2074 to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic 2075 designation. 2076 2077 11. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the 2078 historic landmark commission and the planning commission and the results of the 2079 property owner opinion ballot process, the city council shall hold a public hearing to 2080 consider the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation in 2081 accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General 2082 Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title and the following: 2083 2084 52 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2085 a. If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the 2086 total number of returned property owner support ballots and represents more than 2087 fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a condominium) within 2088 the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic designation, the city council 2089 may designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a simple majority 2090 vote. 2091 2092 b. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the 2093 threshold identified in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11.a the city council may only 2094 designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an affirmative vote 2095 of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the city council. 2096 2097 c. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in 2098 opposition is equal, the city council may only designate a local historic district or 2099 a thematic district by a super majority vote. 2100 2101 B. Process for Designation of a Landmark Site: 2102 2103 1. Application: 2104 2105 a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: Any owner of property proposed for a 2106 landmark site, the mayor or the city council, by majority vote, may initiate a 2107 petition to consider the designation of a landmark site. 2108 2109 b. Submittal Requirements: Applications for landmark sites shall provide at least all 2110 of the information in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.b unless deemed unnecessary by 2111 the zoning administrator. 2112 2113 c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a landmark site shall not be 2114 required. 2115 2116 2.Notification to Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community 2117 organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 2118 2119 3. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 2120 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 2121 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 2122 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 2123 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of 2124 some modification of the proposal and the recommendation will be submitted to the 2125 city council. 2126 53 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2127 4. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the 2128 historic landmark commission and the planning commission, the city council shall 2129 hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a landmark site in accordance 2130 with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application 2131 and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority 2132 vote, designate a landmark site. 2133 2134 C. City Council Decision: Following city council designation of a landmark site, local 2135 historic district or thematic designation, all of the properties located within the 2136 boundaries of the local historic district, landmark site, or thematic designation will be 2137 subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and subject to the provisions of 2138 Section 21A.34.020. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of the 2139 publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 2140 2141 1. Designation Adoption: Designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 2142 thematic designation includes adoption of the historic survey and associated report 2143 submitted for the designation. Historic resource surveys may be updated pursuant to 2144 the provisions in Section 21A.51.080 or Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 2145 2146 2. Notice of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a 2147 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall provide 2148 notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic 2149 Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the office of 2150 the Salt Lake County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H 2151 Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2152 2153 21A.51.040: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA: 2154 A. Standards for the Designation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic 2155 Designation: The proposed landmark site, local historic district, or thematic designation 2156 shall be evaluated according to the following: 2157 2158 1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or 2159 culture, associated with at least one of the following: 2160 2161 a. Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 2162 history, or 2163 2164 b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or 2165 2166 c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance, or method of 2167 construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 2168 54 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2169 d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt 2170 Lake City; and 2171 2172 2. Historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 2173 feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. When analyzing historic 2174 integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic 2175 district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual 2176 building or structure in a district. 2177 2178 3. The proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or 2179 is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 2180 2181 4. The proposed designation contains notable examples of elements of the city’s history, 2182 development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic 2183 districts within Salt Lake City; 2184 2185 5. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 2186 2187 6. The designation would be in the overall public interest. 2188 2189 B. Factors to Consider: The following factors may be considered by the historic landmark 2190 commission and the city council to help determine whether the proposed designation of a 2191 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the criteria listed 2192 above: 2193 2194 1. Sites are of an age that allows insight into whether a property is sufficiently important 2195 in the overall history of the community as identified in one or more periods of 2196 significance in a historic survey report. Typically, this is at least fifty (50) years but 2197 could be less if the property has exceptional importance. 2198 2199 2. Whether the proposed local historic district or thematic designation contains 2200 examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture 2201 that may not already be protected by other local historic districts within the city. 2202 2203 3. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation 2204 would add important knowledge that advances the understanding of the city’s history, 2205 development patterns and/or architecture. 2206 2207 4. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the 2208 proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent applicable 2209 historic survey and those relate to identified significance and periods of significance. 2210 55 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2211 C. Boundaries of a Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in 2212 Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to ensure that 2213 historical associations, that best enhance the integrity of the site comprise the boundaries. 2214 2215 D. Boundaries of a Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation criteria 2216 in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the local historic 2217 district: 2218 2219 1. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or features 2220 rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 2221 2222 2. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, 2223 subdivision plats or property lines; 2224 2225 3. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized 2226 neighborhood boundaries; and 2227 2228 4. Contains noncontributing resources or vacant land only where necessary to create 2229 appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria in Subsections 21A.51.040.A and 2230 21A.51.040.D. 2231 2232 E. Boundaries of a Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation criteria 2233 of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic designation contains 2234 a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are associated by historical, 2235 architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals 2236 of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 2237 2238 21A.51.050: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT PROCESS: 2239 A. Applicability: Existing Local Historic Amendments applies to the following: 2240 2241 1. Expanding the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or adding 2242 additional properties to an existing thematic designation; 2243 2. Reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or 2244 removing properties from an existing thematic designation; and 2245 3. Revocation of the designation of a landmark site. 2246 2247 B. Process for Amendments to Existing Local Historic Districts and Thematic Designations: 2248 2249 1. Boundary Expansion: The process for expanding the boundaries of an existing local 2250 historic district or adding properties to a thematic designation shall be the same as 2251 outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that the following shall only apply to the 2252 properties being added into the proposed expanded boundary and do not apply to 56 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2253 those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation 2254 and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District: 2255 2256 a. The notification to affected property owners described in Subsection 2257 21A.51.030.A.1.b; 2258 2259 b. The application submittal requirements for demonstrating support of 33% of the 2260 property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2; 2261 2262 c. The property owner meeting described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.6; 2263 2264 d. The opinion ballot described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9; 2265 2266 e. Notification of property owner opinion balloting results in Subsection 2267 21A.51.030.A.10; and 2268 2269 f. City council consideration opinion ballot thresholds described in Subsection 2270 21A.51.030.A.11. 2271 2272 2. Boundary Reduction: The process for reducing the boundaries of an existing local 2273 historic district or removing properties from a thematic designation shall be the same 2274 as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that: 2275 2276 a. The requirements described in Subsection 21A.51.050.B.1.a through f, shall only 2277 apply to those properties proposed to be removed from the local historic district or 2278 thematic designation and do not apply to those properties already designated in a 2279 local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic 2280 Preservation Overlay District. 2281 2282 b. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the 2283 Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible 2284 for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by 2285 Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning 2286 commission or the mayor shall not be required. 2287 2288 C. Amendments to Existing Landmark Sites: 2289 2290 1. Boundary Expansion or Reduction or Revocation: The process for expanding or 2291 reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site or the revocation of the 2292 designation of a landmark site shall follow the steps outlined in Subsection 2293 21A.51.030.B in addition to: 2294 2295 a. Fees: Applications for reducing the boundaries of a landmark site or for the 2296 revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall be accompanied by the 57 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2297 applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The 2298 applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for 2299 providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications 2300 filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. 2301 2302 21A.51.060: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT CRITERIA: 2303 2304 A. Expansion: A proposed expansion of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local 2305 historic district, or the addition of properties to a thematic designation shall be considered 2306 utilizing the provisions of Subsections 21A.51.040.A through E and provided that new 2307 information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would better convey the 2308 historical and architectural integrity of the landmark site, local historic district or 2309 thematic designation. 2310 2311 B. Reduction: A proposed reduction of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local 2312 historic district or the removal of properties from a thematic designation shall 2313 demonstrate the properties have no longer met the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A 2314 for inclusion within the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. The 2315 qualities that caused them to be originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such 2316 qualities were lost subsequent to the historic landmark commission recommendation and 2317 adoption of the designation. 2318 2319 C. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: A proposal for revocation of a 2320 landmark site shall demonstrate the property no longer meets the criteria in Subsection 2321 21A.51.040.A for which it was originally designated. 2322 2323 21A.51.070: LIMITATIONS: 2324 2325 A. If a local historic district or thematic designation proposal fails in accordance with the 2326 voting procedures set forth in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9, a resident may not initiate the 2327 creation of a local historic district or thematic designation that includes more than fifty 2328 percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district or thematic 2329 designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the property owner opinion 2330 ballots for the vote were due. 2331 1. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an 2332 application pursuant to Section 21A.51.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not 2333 restrict the mayor or the city council from initiating a petition at any time for a new 2334 local historic district or thematic designation, or to amend the boundaries of a local 2335 historic district or the removal or addition of properties in a thematic designation. 2336 2337 21A.51.080: HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEYS 2338 58 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2339 A. Existing Historic Resource Surveys: Any historic resource survey that was conducted for 2340 the city prior to the amendment of this chapter shall be utilized by the planning director 2341 and the historic landmark commission in applying provisions of Section 21A.34.020 the 2342 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Any subsequent adoption of a historic resource 2343 survey will be done by ordinance in accordance with the provisions in this chapter and 2344 will supersede previous surveys. 2345 2346 B. Updates to Historic Resource Surveys: 2347 2348 1. Applicability: The city aims to update historic resource surveys on a periodic basis as 2349 recommended by the National Park Service. Updates to surveys are for land use 2350 purposes to determine periods of significance, to determine historic status of 2351 individual properties, to update the national register, and to keep archival records on 2352 historic properties. Updates to a historic resource survey for existing local historic 2353 district is subject to the following: 2354 2355 a. The standards of the H Historic Preservation Overlay apply to those properties 2356 within an adopted local historic district. Any other properties evaluated in a 2357 historic resource survey outside the boundary of a designated local district or 2358 thematic designation will not be subject to the land use regulations associated 2359 with historic status designations in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2360 2361 b. An updated historic resource survey maintains the boundaries of a local historic or 2362 the properties within a thematic designation but may update the historic status of 2363 properties within the adopted H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2364 2365 c. Historic Status Determinations: Instances where the historic status of an 2366 individual property within a local historic district is in question, the zoning 2367 administrator will use the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.D to make a 2368 timely determination. 2369 2370 d. Any properties changing status from the most recent historic resource survey shall 2371 be specifically identified in the updated survey and their period of significance 2372 and historic status listed. 2373 2374 2. Process for Updating Historic Resource Surveys: 2375 2376 a. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 2377 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 2378 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 2379 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 2380 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the updated historic resource 59 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2381 survey or the approval of some modification of the updated historic resource 2382 survey and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. 2383 2384 b. City Council: Following the transmittal of the historic landmark commission’s 2385 recommendation, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider adopting 2386 the updated historic survey in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2387 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The 2388 city council may, by a majority vote, adopt the updated historic resource survey. 2389 In deciding to adopt an updated historic resource survey, the city council may 2390 consider the following in their decision making: 2391 2392 (1) Any benefit or impact that extending the period of significance would have on 2393 the local district or thematic designation and the city; 2394 2395 (2) Any new period of significance in the updated survey is identified and 2396 associated with at least one of the following: 2397 2398 (a) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 2399 history, or 2400 (b) Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or 2401 nation, or 2402 (c) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance or method 2403 of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 2404 (d) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of 2405 Salt Lake City; and 2406 (3) Any properties within a new period of significance will be assessed for 2407 aspects of integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, 2408 workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service 2409 Aspects of integrity. When analyzing integrity, the collective historic value of 2410 the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be 2411 greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a 2412 district. If integrity is intact, the property is denoted as contributing in the 2413 updated survey; 2414 2415 (4) Any notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns 2416 or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt 2417 Lake City are specifically identified for any new periods of significance in the 2418 updated survey; 2419 2420 (5) The historic survey update would be in the overall public interest. 60 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2421 2422 C. City Council Action: If an updated historic resource survey is adopted by the city council, 2423 the updated historic resource survey including any updated historic status designations 2424 shall be used when applying provisions of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in 2425 Section 21A.34.020. The decision to update a historic resource survey will go into effect 2426 on the date of the publication of the related ordinance unless otherwise noted on the 2427 adopted ordinance. 2428 2429 2430 21A.51.090: APPEAL OF DECISION: 2431 2432 Any party adversely affected by the decision of the city council may, within thirty (30) days 2433 after such decision, file a petition for review to the District Court pursuant to the Municipal 2434 Land Use Development and Management Act, Section 10-9a-801, of the Utah Code. 2435 2436 SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 2437 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 2438 hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list 2439 in alphabetical order: 2440 Contributing Structure 2441 Noncontributing Structure 2442 Demolition (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) 2443 Demolition, Partial (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay 2444 District) 2445 Historic Design Guidelines 2446 Historic Integrity 2447 Economic Hardship 2448 Historic Resource Survey 2449 Landmark Site 2450 Local Historic District 2451 Period of Significance 2452 Thematic Designation 2453 Willful Neglect 2454 2455 SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That 2456 Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) shall 61 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2457 be and hereby is amended to add the following definitions, which shall be inserted in 2458 alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 2459 2460 CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H historic preservation 2461 overlay district that has been determined through the process outlined in Section 2462 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, to 2463 generally retain historic integrity. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part 2464 of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a 2465 local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each 2466 individual building or structure in a district. A contributing structure generally has its 2467 major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have 2468 occurred, they are generally reversible. 2469 2470 DEMOLITION (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC 2471 PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Any act or process which destroys a structure, 2472 object or property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. 2473 (See definition of demolition, partial.) 2474 2475 DEMOLITION, PARTIAL (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H 2476 HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Partial demolition includes any act 2477 which destroys a portion of a structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) 2478 of the floor area of the structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is 2479 not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal 2480 of additions or materials not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty 2481 five percent (25%) when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic 2482 elements of a structure and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. 2483 2484 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or 2485 economically viable use of a property without just compensation. 2486 2487 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES: The historic design guidelines provide guidance in 2488 determining the suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, 2489 alteration or new construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that 2490 meet current needs of properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2491 For architects, designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning 2492 and designing future projects. For city staff and the historic landmark commission, they 2493 provide guidance for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines 2494 are officially adopted by city council. 2495 2496 HISTORIC INTEGRITY: The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or 2497 attributes. As defined by the National Park Service, the following aspects or qualities, in 2498 various combinations, define historic integrity: 2499 Location- Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the 2500 place where a historic event occurred. 62 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2501 2502 Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, 2503 structure, and style of a property. 2504 2505 Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 2506 2507 Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited 2508 during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a 2509 historic property. 2510 2511 Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular 2512 culture or people during any given period in history. 2513 2514 Feeling: Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a 2515 particular period of time. 2516 2517 Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or 2518 person and a historic property. 2519 2520 HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the 2521 quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the 2522 guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Historic resource 2523 surveys shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum professional 2524 qualifications defined by the U.S. National Park Service in the fields of history, archeology, 2525 architectural history, architecture, or historic architecture. 2526 2527 LANDMARK SITE: Any historic site that has been designated in accordance with 2528 Subsection 21A.51.030.B or any site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. A 2529 landmark site includes an individual building, structure or feature or an integrated group of 2530 buildings, structures or features on a single site. Such sites are of exceptional importance to 2531 the city, state, region or nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural values. A 2532 landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the 2533 historic character of the site. Landmark sites are subject to the regulations of Section 2534 21A.34.020, the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2535 2536 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A contiguous geographically definable area with a 2537 minimum district size of one “block face”, as defined in Section 21A.62.040, designated by 2538 the city council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which contains 2539 buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape features, archaeological sites and works of art, 2540 or a combination thereof, that contributes to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. 2541 All properties within a local historic district are subject to the regulations of Section 2542 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2543 2544 NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic 2545 Preservation Overlay District that has been determined noncontributing through the 2546 process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or 63 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2547 Subsection 21A.34.020.D, and does not retain historic integrity. The major character 2548 defining features have been so altered as to make the historic form, materials or details 2549 indistinguishable and such alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may 2550 also include those rated out of period, and therefore, they are not representative of a 2551 period of significance as identified in an adopted historic resource survey. 2552 PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: The period of significance is the period when the historic 2553 events associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site 2554 occurred. This period must reflect the dates associated with the property or site, or in the case 2555 of a district, the collection of properties within the district. A period of significance may be 2556 thousands of years (in the case of an archeological property), several years, or even a few 2557 days, depending on the duration of the event. There may be multiple periods of significance 2558 associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site. 2559 THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or 2560 features designated by City Council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, 2561 which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united together 2562 by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic 2563 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic 2564 interest or value. All properties within a thematic designation are subject to the regulations of 2565 Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2566 2567 WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a 2568 building over time. 2569 2570 SECTION 13. Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule. That the section of the Salt 2571 Lake City consolidated fee schedule titled, “Zoning Fees” shall be and hereby is amended to read 2572 as follows: ZONING FEES For question regarding Zoning fees contact: 801.535.7700 Service Fee Additional Information Section Determination of Nonconforming Use $214 21A.38.025.4 Administrative Interpretation $71 Plus $61 per hour for research after the first hour 21A.12.040.A.6 Alley Vacation/Closure $285 Fee waiver available if adequate signatures are obtained. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)14.52.030. A.5 Alternative Parking Residential $428 21A.52.040 .A.3 Nonresidential $785 21A.52.040 .A.3 Amendments Master plan $1,070 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (10.9a.204). Utah Code Annoted 10.9A.510 64 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Zoning map amendment $1,142 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E).21A.50.040.B Zoning text amendment $1,142 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.50.040.B Annexation $1,427 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)Utah Code Annoted 10.2.401.5 Appeal of a Decision Administrative decision $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B Historic Landmark Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B Planning Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.16.030.B Appearance Before the Zoning Enforcement Hearing Office First scheduled hearing No charge 21A.20.90 Second scheduled hearing $71 21A.20.90 Billboard Construction or Demolition including the demolition of a non-conforming billboard $285 21A.46.160.D.3 & 21A.46.160.L.2 Conditional Building and Site Design Review $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E).21A.59.070.B Conditional Use $856 See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E).21A.54.060.C Condominium Preliminary $571 Plus $37 per unit. See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E).20.56.40.B Final $428 Plus $24 per unit.20.56.40.B Declaration of Surplus Real Property $428 2.58.040 Historic Landmarks Commission Review (Application) Major Alterations of a principal building $36 $100 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020 New construction of a principal building $285 $2,982 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020 Demolition of a contributing principal building $571 $2,406 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020 Relocation of a contributing principal building $285 $303 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020 Reduction to boundaries of the H Historic Pres. Overlay District $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E)21A.51.050 Revocation of a Landmark Site $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E)21A.51.050 Economic Hardship $2,050 Plus $200/hour up to $20,000. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.34.020 Home Occupation Non-conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Outdoor Dining Outdoor Dining Application $30 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (1-5 tables)$120 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (6 or more tables)$180 21A.40.065 Planned Development $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of (1) acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.55 Signs 65 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Permit fee for signs Based on the adopted Building Permit Fee Schedule 21A.46.030 Plan checking fee $0.13 Of building permit value 21A.46.030 Inspection tag $14 21A.46.030 Site Development Permit $285 Plus $61 per acre in excess of one (1) acre 18.28.040.E Special Exception $285 For historic structures, see Section 21A.34.020 and 21A.46.070V. See also fee for required public notices 21A.10.010.E) 21A.52.040.A.3 Street Closure $428 See also fee for required public notices.2.58.040 Subdivision Amendments $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36)20.04.120 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36)20.04.120 Subdivision Final Plat $856 Plus $121 per lot.20.04.120 Subdivision Vacations $428 See also fee for required public notices (20.36)20.04.120 Engineering Review and Inspection Fee 5% of the 1st $100,000 of public improvemen ts & 2% for the amount above $100,000 20.04.120 Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $284 20.04.120 Subdivision Consolidating Lots $273 20.04.120 Temporary Uses $285 21A.42.060.B Zoning Variance $428 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E)21A.18.040.B As per applicable sections of the Ccity and / or Sstate Ccode, a fee will be assessed for required public notices. This may include sending notice by 1st class U.S. Mail to property owners within a certain radius of the subject property and / or advertising required public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. A fee for each required public hearing will be assessed. The noticing fee is authorized through the following sections of the Zzoning Oordinance and Sstate Llaw: Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.010.E and Utah State Code Annotated 10.9a.204 Section 10-9a-501. and 510 2573 2574 2575 SECTION 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 2576 first publication. 2577 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2578 202_. 2579 ______________________________ 2580 CHAIRPERSON 2581 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 2582 2583 ______________________________ 66 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2584 CITY RECORDER 2585 2586 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 2587 2588 2589 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 2590 2591 ______________________________ 2592 MAYOR 2593 ______________________________ 2594 CITY RECORDER 2595 (SEAL) 2596 2597 Bill No. ________ of 202_. 2598 Published: ______________.2599 Ordinance amending H Historic Preservation Overlay District regs (legislative) 9-26-23 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: H Historic Preservation Overlay District Text Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Amy Thompson, Planning Manager amy.thompson@slcgov.com or 801-535-7281 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the H Historic Preservation Overlay Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a petition for a text amendment that would impact the H Historic Preservation Overlay District which applies to properties within a local historic district or local landmark sites. Salt Lake City currently has 14 local historic districts and approximately 150 Local Landmark Sites. Properties subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District require approval for exterior alterations, new construction, demolition and relocation. The H Historic Preservation Overlay District also outlines process and standards for local historic designations, boundary adjustments to existing local historic districts, and revocation of local historic designation. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to make the zoning ordinance easier to use for applicants, property owners, staff, and the historic landmark commission in its administration. The proposed ordinance also creates new processes for adopting and updating historic resource surveys, consistent with the city’s adopted Community Preservation Plan. Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:35 MDT) 08/08/2023 08/08/2023 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The proposed changes reorganize and add clarity to existing processes, as well as create new processes to strengthen confirmation of historic districts and buildings within Salt Lake City. The following summarizes the proposed ordinance changes: Reorganization: • Clarify and reorganize chapter 21A.34.020 (the H Historic Preservation Overlay) so repetition is removed, and process steps are clear. • Moves definitions from 21A.34.020 to the Definition chapter of the zoning ordinance – 21A.62. • Moves local historic designation, boundary adjustments to existing local historic districts, and revocation of the designation of a landmark site, which are all technically a map amendment process from 21A.34.020 to a new chapter – 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments. Processing steps, requirements, and standards for designations and amendments are not changing from what currently exists in the code. Proposed Changes/Additions: • Adds an applicability section to 21A.34.020 so it is clear what properties are subject to the overlay and what standards are applicable. • Exempts certain work from obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) such as installation of storm windows, small plaques or mailboxes, and utility meters/charging stations and solar panels not visible from the right of way. • Authorizes review and approval of all solar panels at a staff level. Currently the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) is required to review solar panels on the front façade of a building. • Adds in the ability to deny certain CoA requests at a staff level when standards are not met as a streamlining measure for the HLC’s time. • Jurisdiction & authority language for the HLC has been added to reflect duties that aren’t currently listed such as making recommendations to the Board of State History regarding National Register Nominations and making HELPFUL PRESERVATION TERMS • Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA): Historic approval • Historic Resource Survey: A resource for identifying and evaluating the quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Historic Resource Surveys are prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum qualifications defined by the National Park Service. There are two different types of surveys that Salt Lake City deals with, those are reconnaissance level surveys and intensive level surveys. A survey generally consists of a written report summarizing the history, development patterns, and physical character of the study area and an inventory of all properties included in the survey and a historic status rating for each property (whether contributing or noncontributing) accompanied by maps, photographs, and recommendations. The survey will also identify periods of significance for the district – anything outside of the identified period of significance is rated as out of period which is noncontributing to the district. • Historic Integrity: The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or attributes. As defined by the National Park Service, the following aspects, or qualities, in various combinations, define historic integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association. • Period of Significance: The period when the historic events associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site occurred. This period must reflect the dates associated with the property or site, or in the case of a district, the collection of properties within the district. A period of significance may be thousands of years (in the case of an archeological property), several years, or even a few days, depending on the duration of the event. There may be multiple periods of significance associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site. • Contributing: A structure or site within a historic district that retains historic integrity. A contributing structure generally has its major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred, they are generally reversible. • Noncontributing: A structure or site within a historic district that does not retain historic integrity. The major character defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic form, materials, and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may also include those which are less than 50 years old or not within a period of significance associated with the historic district. recommendations to the City Council on the development of incentive programs to encourage the preservation of the City’s historic resources. • Adds requirements for contents of the mailing notice for demolition of a noncontributing building. • Increases the application fee for certain applications reviewed by the HLC. • Requires an application fee for determination of economic hardship, reduction to the boundary of an existing local historic district, and revocation of a landmark site. • Adds new definitions - period of significance and historic integrity. • Adds in language to have City Council adopt historic resource surveys and associated reports that accompany local historic designations. • Fine tuning language. New Processes: • Creates a process and factors to consider for updates to historic resource surveys. • Creates a process and factors to consider for historic status determinations (i.e., contributing or noncontributing status) for individual properties in certain circumstances – such as a property was not rated or warrants reconsideration. Both the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission held public hearings to review the proposed text amendment and unanimously forwarded a positive recommendation of approval to the City Council. CONSIDERATIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL Since the positive recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission, a few technical corrections were made to the proposed ordinance. These include: • Corrected citations in section 21A.51.050.B to reference the correct section of the ordinance. • Updated language in Subsection 21A.010.020.B, which relates to special noticing requirements for administrative approvals, to reflect changes that were made with the recently adopted early engagement ordinance. • Revised language in 21A.34.020.B, which relates to the applicability of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, to remove repetitive language that is referenced elsewhere in the proposed ordinance. PUBLIC PROCESS: Recognized Organizations: On March 13, 2023, all Salt Lake City recognized organizations were sent the required 45-day notice for the proposed text amendment. Open House: On March 20, 2023, a virtual open house was hosted on Planning’s website and published via list serve. The open house included information about the proposal and a draft of the ordinance. Community Council Meetings: At the request of the community council chairs, staff attended the following community council meetings to discuss the proposed text amendment and answer any questions from the community: • April 17, 2023 – Sugar House Community Council • May 3, 2023 –Central City Neighborhood Council Historic Landmark Commission Public hearing: • April 20, 2023 o Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 4, 2023 o The Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission Public Hearing: • May 11, 2023 o Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 24, 2023 o The Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Public Comments Received: Staff received three public comments about this proposal. All public comments noted below were discussed at both the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission public hearings. One of the comments expressed support of local historic districts, reassessment of properties and the use of historic surveys, but outlined questions/concerns related to the criteria used, their definitions, and who makes the decision related to the historic status of a property. This commenter also expressed concern with one of the zoning ordinance considerations for establishment of a historic district related to the percentage of contributing structures for establishing a local historic district, the lack of regulation for properties in a national historic district, and the need for better education for property owners on the impacts of demolition and inappropriate alterations. Planning Response to Public Comment: The zoning ordinance includes definitions for contributing and noncontributing which relate to the historic status of a property. The zoning ordinance also outlines criteria for the historic status of a property and required qualifications for people conducting historic surveys. In response to the question/concern about the local historic district designation consideration that at least 75% of the structures within a proposed district are contributing. This is not a requirement; this is a consideration to help determine if the proposed district meets the standards for designation. The process, standards and considerations applicable to local historic designation currently exist in the zoning ordinance and are not changing with the proposed ordinance language. Lastly, properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places either individually or as part of a National Historic District is an honorary designation overseen by the National Park Service that offers tax incentives for qualifying work – National Register properties are not regulated by Salt Lake City unless they are also locally designated. Two of the comments expressed concern with the process for historic status determinations (i.e., contributing, or noncontributing status) in the proposed ordinance. Planning Response to Public Comment: The purpose of historic status determinations is to ensure the correct standards apply to each property within a local historic district. The process for historic status determinations is a zoning administrator interpretation for individual properties in certain circumstances where a timely determination of a property’s historic status is needed. These include properties that were inadvertently missed in the survey or for whatever reason, not given a historic status rating, and properties that may have been incorrectly rated and warrant reconsideration. The zoning administrator is authorized to make interpretations of zoning code standards. The zoning administrator has issued historic status determinations for individual properties when the historic status of the property has been in question; this text amendment essentially puts this specific process into our zoning ordinance. Historic status determinations may be initiated by a property owner or the planning director. The proposed ordinance lists several considerations for making historic status determinations that relate to whether a property retains historic integrity, as defined in the zoning ordinance. Historic status determinations are posted and available to the public on the planning division’s website and sent to the Historic Landmark Commission. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION (HLC) RECORDS (MAY 4, 2023): a) HLC Agenda (Click to Access) b) HLC Staff Report (Click to Access Report) c) HLC Minutes (Click to Access) d) HLC Meeting Video (Click to Access) PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) RECORDS (MAY 24, 2023): a) PC Agenda (Click to Access) b) PC Staff Report (Click to Access Report) c) PC Minutes (Click to Access) d) PC Meeting Video (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance, Final and Legislative Versions 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Petition Initiation 5) Public Comments Received After Publication of the Staff Report 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and amending the consolidated fee schedule.) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code and the consolidated fee schedule pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123 pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. WHEREAS, on May 4, 2023, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission (“Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123) to amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; and WHEREAS, at its May 4, 2023 meeting, the Landmark Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said petition; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.040. That Section 21A.06.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Appeals Hearing Officer) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.06.040: APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: A. Creation: The position of appeals hearing officer is created pursuant to the enabling authority granted by the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, Section 10-9a-701 of the Utah Code. B. Jurisdiction and Authority: The appeals hearing officer shall have the following powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the zoning administrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.16, “Appeals of Administrative Decisions”, of this title; 2. Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 21A.18, “Variances”, of this title; 3. Hear and decide appeals of any decision made by the historic landmark commission, or the planning director in the case of administrative decisions, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 21A.34.020, “H Historic Preservation Overlay District”, of this title; 4. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the planning commission concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in title 20, “Subdivisions and Condominiums”, of this code; and 5. Hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions made by the planning commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this title. C. Qualifications: The appeals hearing officer shall be appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council. The mayor may appoint more than one appeals hearing officer, but only one appeals hearing officer shall consider and decide upon any matter properly presented for appeals hearing officer review. The appeals hearing officer may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of five (5) years each. The appeals hearing officer shall either be law trained or have significant experience with land use laws and the requirements and operations of administrative hearing processes. 3 D. Conflict of Interest: The appeals hearing officer shall not participate in any appeal in which the appeals hearing officer has a conflict of interest prohibited by Title 2, Chapter 2.44 of this code. E. Removal of The Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer may be removed by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the planning director following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the appeals hearing officer. If requested by the appeals hearing officer, the mayor shall provide the appeals hearing officer with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the mayor. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.050. That Section 21A.06.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: Historic Landmark Commission) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.06.050: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: A. General Provisions: The provisions of Title 2, Chapter 2.07 of this code shall apply to the historic landmark commission except as otherwise set forth in this section. B. Creation: The historic landmark commission was created pursuant to the enabling authority granted by the Historic District Act, Section 11-18-1 et seq., of the Utah Code (repealed), and continues under the authority of Utah Code Section 10-8-85.9 and the Land Use Development and Management Act, Utah Code Chapter 10-9a. C. Jurisdiction and Authority: The historic landmark commission shall: 1. Review and approve or deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.34 of this title; 2. Participate in public education programs to increase public awareness of the value of historic, architectural and cultural preservation; Communicate the benefits of historic preservation for the education, prosperity, and general welfare of residents, visitors and tourists; 3. Review and approve or deny applications for the demolition of contributing principal structures in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 21A.34 of this title; 4 4. Review designations, amendments to and boundaries of a local historic district, thematic designation and landmark sites, and make a recommendation to the planning commission and the city council; 5. Make recommendations on applications for zoning amendments involving properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District when requested by the applicant, planning director, planning commission or the city council; 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for an administrative decision by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: a. Overall building and accessory structure height; b. Building and accessory structure wall height; c. Accessory structure square footage; d. Fence and retaining wall height; e. Signs pursuant to Section 21A.46.070 of this title; and f. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable standards identified in Section 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the surrounding historic structures; 7. Make recommendations to the planning commission in connection with the preparation of the general plan of the city; 8. Make recommendations to the city council on design guidelines, policies and ordinances that may encourage preservation of buildings and related structures of historical and architectural significance; 9. Review historic resource surveys for designations and all subsequent updates and make recommendations to the planning commission and the city council; 10. Review National Register of Historic Places nominations or amendments and make a recommendation to the Utah Board of State History; and 11. Recommend to the city council development of incentive programs, either public or private, to encourage the preservation of the city’s historic resources. 5 D. Membership: The historic landmark commission shall consist of not less than seven (7) nor more than eleven (11) voting members appointed in a manner providing balanced geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests representation. In situations where a member resigns or is removed as prescribed in this code and adopted policies and procedures and as a result, the number of members drops to less than seven (7), the commission may still function until a 7th member is appointed. Appointment to a position created by any vacancy shall not be included in the determination of any person’s eligibility to serve two (2) consecutive full terms. E. Qualifications of Members: Each voting member shall be a resident of the city interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the city. Members shall be selected so as to ideally provide representation from the following groups of experts and interested parties whenever a qualified candidate exists: 1. At least two (2) architects, and 2. Residents at large possessing preservation related experience in archaeology, architecture, architectural history, construction, history, folk studies, law, public history, real estate, real estate appraisal, or urban planning. F. Meetings: The historic landmark commission shall meet at least once per month or as needed. G. Commission Action: A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be required for any action taken. H. Public Hearings: The historic landmark commission shall schedule and give public notice of all public hearings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21A.10 of this title. I. Removal of a Member: Any member of the historic landmark commission may be removed by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the historic landmark commission following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the member. J. Policies and Procedures: The historic landmark commission shall adopt policies and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.020.B. That Subsection 21A.010.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Application and Public 6 Hearing Procedures: Public Hearing Noticing Requirements: Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Special Noticing Requirements for Administrative Approvals: 1. Notice of Application for Design Review: a. Notification: At least twelve (12) days before a land use decision is made for an administrative design review application as authorized in Chapter 21A.59 of this title, the planning director shall provide written notice to the following: (1) All owners and identifiable tenants of the subject property, land abutting the subject property, and land located directly across the street from the subject property. In identifying the owners and tenants of the land the city shall use the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. (2) Recognized community organization(s) in which the subject property is located. b. Contents of the Notice of Application: The notice shall generally describe the subject matter of the application, where the public may review the application, the expected date when the planning director will authorize a final land use decision, and the procedures to appeal the land use decision. c. End of Notification Period: If the planning director receives comments identifying concerns related to the design review application not complying with the requirements of Chapter 21A.59, the planning director may refer the matter to the planning commission for their review and decision on the application. 2. Notice of Application for Demolition of a Noncontributing Principal Structure Within An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing principal structure, the city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action to all owners of the land and tenants of abutting properties and those properties across the street from the subject property as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Notice of Application: The mailing notice shall generally describe the subject property, include a vicinity map, include a photograph of the noncontributing structure, date of construction, historic status from the most recent historic survey on file or from a historic status determination, where the application can be inspected by the public, and the date when the planning director will issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 3. Notice of Application for TSA Development Reviews: Prior to the approval of a development review score as authorized in Section 21A.26.078 of this title, the planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve 7 (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and those properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. a. Contents of the Mailing Notice of Application: The notice for mailing shall generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal an administrative decision set forth in Chapter 21A.16 of this title. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020. That Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic Preservation Overlay District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement B. Applicability C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments or Revocation D. Historic Status Determination E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required F. Procedures for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site, Contributing Structure or New Construction of an Accessory Structure H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure I. Standards for Relocation J. Standards for Demolition of a Landmark Site K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building L. Economic Hardship Determination A. Purpose Statement: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District is to: 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance; 8 2. Provide the means to manage alterations to historic structures to encourage beneficial use and viability of the building while protecting an individual building’s contributing status. 3. Encourage new development and redevelopment of properties that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks; 4. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 5. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation; 6. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 7. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city’s historic landmarks and districts for tourists and visitors; 8. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 9. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability. B. Applicability: All properties located within the boundaries of a local historic district, part of a thematic designation, or designated as a landmark site are subject to the requirements of this chapter. 1. Applicable Standards: The applicable standards of this chapter are determined by the historic status rating of the property, either contributing or noncontributing, as identified in the most recent historic resource survey on file with the Salt Lake City Planning Division or a historic status determination issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.D. C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments, or Revocation: Local Historic Designation, Adjustment, Expansion, or Revocation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic Designation shall follow the applicable procedures and standards in Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments. D. Historic Status Determination: 1. Purpose: Historic status determinations are to address the historic status of individual structures within a local historic district on a case-by-case basis through robust review of documentation in order to render a timely decision on the historic status for circumstances outlined below. 2. Applicability: Historic status determinations may be rendered for properties within an existing local historic district using the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 9 to determine whether they are contributing or noncontributing to the local historic district for the following: a. Unrated Properties: Properties that were inadvertently missed in a survey or not given a historic status rating; b. Incorrectly Rated Properties: Properties that may have been given an incorrect status rating in a survey; 3. Authority: Historic status determinations shall be made by the zoning administrator in the form of an administrative interpretation. 4. Persons Entitled to Seek Historic Status Determinations: Application for a historic status determination may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner’s authorized agent. The planning director may also initiate a petition for a historic status determination. 5. Limitations: A historic status determination shall not: a. Change the boundaries of the local historic district; b. Be issued for landmark sites; c. Be issued for structures that are not within period of significance in an adopted historic resource survey. 6. Application for Historic Status Determination: An administrative interpretation application may be made to the zoning administrator on a form provided, which shall include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: a. The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in the subject property. The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; b. The street address, legal description and tax number of the subject property; c. Current and historic photographs; d. Any historic resource surveys and reports on record in the Planning Division or the Utah State Historic Preservation Office; e. Description of any alterations to the structure and the date of approval for any alterations; f. The historic status rating the applicant believes to be correct. When the request is to change the historic status rating, the applicant shall state in the application the reason(s) the existing historic rating is incorrect and why it should be changed 10 based on the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7, or provide an intensive level historic resource survey conducted in accordance with the Utah State Preservation Office standards for building surveys addressing the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 for analysis by the zoning administrator. g. Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for a full and proper consideration of the particular application. 7. Considerations for Historic Status Determinations: A historic status determination may include the following considerations: a. Whether alterations that have occurred are generally reversible. b. Whether the building contributes to an understanding of a period of significance of a neighborhood, community, or area. c. Whether or not the building retains historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. The analysis shall take into consideration how the building reflects the historical or architectural merits of the overall local historic district in which the resource is located. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. 8. Decision: Written findings documenting the historic status determination shall be sent to the applicant and members of the historic landmark commission and kept on file in city records. 9. Updating Records: If the historic status determination is different than the property’s historic rating in the most recent historic resource survey, the determination will stand, and the city’s applicable historic resource survey(s) will be updated to reflect the determination. 10. Appeal of Decision: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the zoning administrator interpreting a provision of this title may appeal to the appeals hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required: No alteration in the exterior appearance of a structure, site, or object affecting a property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made until an application for a certificate of appropriateness is approved by the historic landmark commission, or administratively by the planning director, as applicable, pursuant to Subsection F of this section. 11 1. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required for all of the following: a. Any exterior alteration to the property or any structure on the property unless specifically exempted under Subsection 21A.34.020.E.2; b. New Construction; c. Relocation of a structure or object on the same site or to another site; d. Demolition; 2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness: a. Installation of storm windows; b. Landscaping that: (1) Complies with the standards of this title; (2) Does not include a wall fence or grade changes; and (3) Is not an attribute that is a character defining feature of the property or streetscape; c. Painting of surfaces that does not include unpainted stone, brick or cement; d. Plaques, boxes, and other similar objects that measure 18 inches or less in any dimension, contain no electrical components, and are attached to exterior finish material or mounted through mortar joints when on a masonry wall; e. Electrical, gas, or water meters or outlets, including electric vehicle charging outlets, that are in a location that is not visible from the public right of way; f. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems that do not require new conduit and are not visible from the public right of way; and g. Solar energy collection systems meeting the priority locations outlined in Subsections 21A.40.190.B.3.a through 21A.40.190.B.3.c. F. Procedure for Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. Administrative Authority: The following may be decided by the planning director or designee: a. Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing building or structure; b. Alteration of or addition to a noncontributing building or structure; c. Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building or structure; 12 d. Demolition of an accessory building or structure; and e. Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure. 2. Historic Landmark Commission Authority: The following shall only be decided by the historic landmark commission: a. Substantial alteration or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, and/or structure; b. New construction of principal building in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; c. Relocation of landmark site or contributing principal building; d. Demolition of landmark site or contributing principal building; e. Economic hardship determination; and f. Applications referred by the planning director. 3. Submission of Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be made on an application form prepared by the zoning administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all mailing fees established for required public noticing. a. General Application Requirements: A complete application shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in the subject property; (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets review standards with citation of supporting adopted city design guidelines; (5) Current and historic photographs of the property (6) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed 13 buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for project evaluation; (7) Elevation drawings and details for all impacted facades; (8) Illustrative photos and or samples of all proposed façade materials; (9) Building, wall, and window section drawings; (10) Any further information or documentation as the zoning administrator deems necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. b. New Construction Application Requirements: In addition to the general application requirements listed above, applications for new construction of a primary structure shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) A context plan showing property lines, building footprints, front yard setbacks, adjacent streets and alleys, historic district boundaries, contributing/noncontributing structures and landmark sites; (2) A streetscape study which includes height measurements for each primary structure on the block face; (3) Renderings that show the new construction in relation to neighboring buildings; and (4) Renderings that show the new construction from the pedestrian perspective. 4. Notice: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness are subject to the notification requirements of Chapter 2.60 of this code. An application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing building or structure shall require notice pursuant to Chapter 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapters 2.60 and 21A.10 of this title. 5. Standards for Approval: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall be reviewed according to the standards set forth in Subsections G through L of this section, whichever are applicable. 6. Administrative Decisions: The planning director or designee shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the planning director or designee shall become effective upon issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. a. Referral of Application to Historic Landmark Commission: The planning director or designee may refer any application to the historic landmark commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance of change to the structure or 14 site, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding architectural or other preservation issues. 7. Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: The historic landmark commission shall hold a public hearing to review the application in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title. The historic landmark commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the historic landmark commission shall become effective at the time the decision is made. Following a decision from the historic landmark commission to approve a certificate of appropriateness, the planning director or designee shall issue a certificate of appropriateness after all conditions of approval are met except for demolition of contributing principal buildings and landmark sites as outlined in Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. 8. Requirements for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: The certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building or landmark site shall not be issued until the following criteria is satisfied: a. The appeal period associated with the approval has expired. b. The landmark commission has granted approval for a new building that will replace the landmark site or contributing principal building to be demolished. The requirement for replacing the contributing principal building or landmark site with a new building may be waived by the historic landmark commission if a new development or redevelopment plan that includes the principal building to be demolished is approved by the historic landmark commission. c. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued simultaneously with the certificate of appropriateness and building permits for the replacement building. 9. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for demolition, the property shall not be removed from the H Historic Preservation Overlay District until the building has been demolished and revocation of the designation of a landmark site has been approved in accordance with Section 21A.51.050, Local Historic Amendments Process. 10. Exceptions of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of Hazardous Buildings: A hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent hazard to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building official shall notify the planning director for consultation and of the final decision. 15 11. Expiration of Approvals: No certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for a period of longer than one (1) year unless a building permit has been issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Salt Lake City Division of Building Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion; or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the historic landmark commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the planning director or designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) days prior to the one (1) year time period. 12. Appeal of Decisions: Any person adversely affected by a final decision of the historic landmark commission, or in the case of administrative decisions, the planning director or designee, may file an appeal in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure Including New Construction of an Accessory Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, or new construction of an accessory structure associated with a landmark site or contributing structure, the historic landmark commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall, using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, find that the project substantially complies with all of the following standards: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment; 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided; 3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed; 4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved; 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved; 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects; 16 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible; 8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment; 9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment; 10. Certain building materials are prohibited: a. Aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl cladding; and when applied directly to an original or historic material. b. Vinyl fencing. 11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Chapter 21A.46 of this title. H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness involving new construction of a principal building, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the historic landmark commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, determine whether the project substantially complies with each of the following standards that pertain to the application to ensure that the proposed project fits into the established context in ways that respect and contribute to the evolution of Salt Lake City’s architectural and cultural traditions: 1. Settlement Patterns and Neighborhood Character: a. Block and Street Patterns: The design of the project preserves and reflects the historic block, street, and alley patterns that give the district its unique character. Changes to the block and street pattern may be considered when advocated by an adopted city plan. b. Lot and Site Patterns: The design of the project preserves the pattern of lot and building site sizes that create the urban character of the historic context and the 17 block face. Changes to the lot and site pattern may be considered when advocated by an adopted city plan. c. The Public Realm: The project relates to adjacent streets and engages with sidewalks in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects should maintain the depth of yard and height of principal elevation of those existing on the block face in order to support consistency in the definition of public and semi-public spaces. d. Building Placement: Buildings are placed such that the project maintains and reflects the historic pattern of setbacks and building depth established within the historic context and the block face. Buildings should maintain the setback demonstrated by existing buildings of that type constructed in the district or site’s period of significance. e. Building Orientation: The building is designed such that principal entrances and pathways are oriented such that they address the street in the pattern established in the historic context and the block face. 2. Site Access, Parking, and Services: a. Site Access: The design of the project allows for site access that is similar, in form and function, with patterns common in the historic context and the block face. (1) Pedestrian: Safe pedestrian access is provided through architecturally highlighted entrances and walkways, consistent with patterns common in the historic context and the block face. (2) Vehicular: Vehicular access is located in the least obtrusive manner possible. Where possible, garage doors and parking should be located to the rear or to the side of the building. b. Site and Building Services and Utilities: Utilities and site/building services (such as HVAC systems, venting fans, and dumpsters) are located such that they are to the rear of the building or on the roof and screened from public spaces and public properties. 3. Landscape and Lighting: a. Grading of Land: The site’s landscape, such as grading and retaining walls, addresses the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. b. Landscape Structures: Landscape structures, such as arbors, walls, fences, address the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. c. Lighting: Where appropriate lighting is used to enhance significant elements of the design and reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. 18 4. Building Form and Scale: a. Character of the Street Block: The design of the building reflects the historic character of the street facade in terms of scale, composition, and modeling. (1) Height: The height of the project reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects taller than those existing on the block face step back their upper floors to present a base that is in scale with the historic context and the block face. (2) Width: The width of the project reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. Projects wider than those existing on the block face modulate the facade to express a series of volumes in scale with the historic context and the block face. (3) Massing: The shape, form, and proportion of buildings, reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. (4) Roof Forms: The building incorporates roof shapes that reflect forms found in the historic context and the block face. 5. Building Character: a. Facade Articulation and Proportion: The design of the project reflects patterns of articulation and proportion established in the historic context and the block face. As appropriate, facade articulations reflect those typical of other buildings on the block face. These articulations are of similar dimension to those found elsewhere in the context, but have a depth of not less than twelve inches (12”). (1) Rhythm of Openings: The facades are designed to reflect the rhythm of openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic context and the block face. (2) Proportion and Scale of Openings: The facades are designed using openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) of similar proportion and scale to that established in the historic context and the block face. (3) Ratio of Wall to Openings: Facades are designed to reflect the ratio of wall to openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic context and the block face. 19 (4) Balconies, Porches, and External Stairs: The project, as appropriate, incorporates entrances, balconies, porches, stairways, and other projections that reflect patterns established in the historic context and the block face. 6. Building Materials, Elements and Detailing: a. Materials: Building facades, other than windows and doors, incorporate no less than eighty percent (80%) durable material such as, but not limited to, wood, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and/or cut stone. These materials reflect those found elsewhere in the district and/or setting in terms of scale and character. b. Materials on Street-Facing Facades: The following materials are not considered to be appropriate and are prohibited for use on facades which face a public street: vinyl siding and aluminum siding. c. Windows: Windows and other openings are incorporated in a manner that reflects patterns, materials, profile, and detailing established in the district and/or setting. d. Architectural Elements and Details: The design of the building features architectural elements and details that reflect those characteristic of the district and/or setting. 7. Signage Location: Locations for signage are provided such that they are an integral part of the site and architectural design and are complementary to the principal structure. I. Standards for Relocation of Landmark Site or Contributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for relocation of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the historic landmark commission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following standards: 1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure; 2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district; 3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance of the structure; 4. The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness of the building or structure; 5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being stored; and 20 6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation has occurred is provided to the city. The financial guarantee shall be in a form approved by the city attorney, in an amount determined by the planning director sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as approved by the historic landmark commission and restore the grade and landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs. J. Standards for Demolition of Landmark Site: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a landmark site, the historic landmark commission shall only approve the application upon finding that the project fully complies with one of the following standards: 1. The demolition is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety pursuant to Subsection 21A.34.020.F.10; or 2. A determination of economic hardship has been granted by the historic landmark commission pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.L. K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building: When considering a request for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building, the historic landmark commission shall determine whether the request substantially complies with the following standards: 1. The historic integrity of the site as defined in Section 21A.62.040 is no longer evident and the site no longer meets the definition of a contributing building or structure in Section 21A.62.040; 2. The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would not be negatively materially affected if the contributing principal building were to be demolished; 3. The demolition would not create a material adverse effect on the concentration of historic resources used to define the boundaries or maintain the integrity of the district; 4. The base zoning of the site does not permit land uses that would allow the adaptive reuse of the contributing principal building; 5. The contributing principal building has not suffered from willful neglect, as evidenced by the following: a. Willful or negligent acts that have caused significant deterioration of the structural integrity of the contributing principal building to the point that the building fails to substantially conform to applicable standards of the state construction code, 21 b. Failure to perform routine and appropriate maintenance and repairs to maintain the structural integrity of the contributing principal building, or c. Failure to secure and board the contributing principal building, if vacant, per Section 18.64.045 of this code. L. Economic Hardship Determination: Upon denial of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building by the historic landmark commission, the owner and/or owner’s representative will have one year from the end of the appeal period as described in Chapter 21A.16 of this title, to submit an application for determination of economic hardship. In the case of a landmark site, an application for determination of economic hardship shall be submitted at the same time as an application for demolition of a landmark site to meet the standard of Subsection 21A.34.020.J.2 of this section. 1. Application for Determination of Economic Hardship: An application for a determination of economic hardship shall be made on a form provided by the zoning administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. 2. Evidence for Determination of Economic Hardship: The burden of proof is on the owner or owner’s representative to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an economic hardship. Any finding in support of economic hardship shall be based solely on the hardship of the property. Evidence may include, but is not limited to: a. Physical condition of the property at time of purchase and the applicant’s plans for the property at time of purchase. b. The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to the following: (1) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between applicant, and the person from whom the property was purchased; (2) The annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, for the previous three (3) years; (3) Real estate taxes for the previous three (3) years by the Salt Lake County Assessor; (4) An appraisal, no older than six (6) months at the time of application for determination of economic hardship conducted by an MAI certified appraiser licensed within the State of Utah. Also all appraisals obtained within the previous three (3) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property; (5) The fair market value of the property taking into consideration the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; and 22 (6) For non-residential or multifamily properties, any state or federal income tax returns on or relating to the property for the previous three (3) years. c. The marketability of the property for sale or lease, as determined by any listing of the property for sale or lease, and price asked and offers received, if any, within the previous two (2) years. This determination can include testimony and relevant documents regarding: (1) Any real estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property; (2) Reasonableness of the price in terms of fair market value or rent sought by the applicant; and (3) Any advertisements placed for the sale or rental of the property. d. The feasibility of alternative uses for the property as considered in relation to the following: (1) Report from a licensed engineer or architect with demonstrated experience in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the structural soundness of any building on the property; (2) An estimate of the cost of the proposed construction or alteration, including the cost of demolition and removal, and potential cost savings for reuse of materials; (3) The estimated market values of the property in current condition, after completion of the demolition; and after renovation of the existing property for continued use; and (4) The testimony of a professional with demonstrated experience in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building on the property. An experienced professional may include, but is not limited to, an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or any other professional experienced in preservation or rehabilitation of older buildings and licensed within the State of Utah. e. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through federal, state, city, or private programs. f. Description of past and current use. g. An itemized report that identifies what is deficient if the building does not meet minimum city building code standards or violations of this code and whether any exceptions within Chapter 12 Historic Buildings of the IEBC, or its successor, could be used to resolve those deficiencies. h. Consideration of map amendment, conditional use, or other land use processes to alleviate hardship. 3. Procedure for Determination of Economic Hardship: 23 a. Appointment of Qualified Expert: The planning director shall appoint a qualified expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or testimony to the historic landmark commission concerning the value of the property and whether or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. (1) The extent of the Authority: The planning director’s appointed qualified expert is limited to rendering advice and testimony to the historic landmark commission and has no decision-making capacity. (2) The planning director’s appointed qualified expert shall have considerable and demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic properties, real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or law. (3) The historic landmark commission may also consider other expert testimony upon reviewing the evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert as necessary. b. Review of Evidence: The historic landmark commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10 of this title to consider the evidence submitted, and the advice and testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert. c. Finding of Economic Hardship: If after reviewing all of the evidence presented by the applicant and the advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert, and if the historic landmark commission finds that the applicant has presented sufficient information supporting a determination of economic hardship, then the historic landmark commission shall approve the demolition. In order to show that all beneficial or economically viable use cannot be obtained, the historic landmark commission must find that all of the following are met: (1) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be economically used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if rehabilitated; (2) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any reasonable beneficial use in its present condition or if rehabilitated; and (3) Bona fide efforts during the previous year to sell or lease the contributing principal building or landmark site at a reasonable price have been unsuccessful. d. Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: If the historic landmark commission finds an economic hardship, a certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. e. Denial of Economic Hardship: If the historic landmark commission does not find an economic hardship, then the application for a certificate of appropriateness for 24 demolition shall be denied. No further economic hardship determination applications may be considered for the subject property for three (3) years from the date of the final decision of the historic landmark commission. The historic landmark commission may waive this restriction if the historic landmark commission finds there are circumstances sufficient to warrant a new hearing other than the re-sale of the property or those caused by the negligence or intentional acts of the owner. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.190.B. That Subsection 21A.40.190.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or Landmark Sites) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and Historic Preservation Overlay Districts: 1. General: In addition to meeting the standards set forth in this section, all applications to install a small solar energy collection system within the Historic Preservation Overlay District shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with Section 21A.34.020 prior to installation. Small solar energy collection systems shall be allowed in accordance with the location priorities detailed in Subsection B.3 of this section. If there is any conflict between the provisions of this Subsection B, and any other requirements of this section, the provisions of this Subsection B shall take precedence. 2. Installation Standards: The small solar energy collection system shall be installed in a location and manner on the building or lot that is least visible and obtrusive and in such a way that causes the least impact to the historic integrity and character of the historic building, structure, site or district while maintaining efficient operation of the solar device. The system must be installed in such a manner that it can be removed and not damage the historic building, structure, or site it is associated with. 3. Small Solar Energy Collection System Location Priorities: In approving appropriate locations and manner of installation, consideration shall include the following locations in the priority order they are set forth below. The method of installation shall be the least visible from a public right-of-way, not including alleys, and most compatible with the character defining features of the historic building, structure, or site. a. Rear yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. b. On accessory buildings or structures in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. c. In a side yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. 25 d. On the principal building in a location not readily visible from a public right-of- way. e. On the principal building in a location that may be visible from a public right-of- way, but not on the structure’s front facade. f. On the front facade of the principal building in a location most compatible with the character defining features of the structure. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.020. That Section 21A.50.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Authority) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.020: AUTHORITY: The text of this title and the zoning map may be amended by the passage of an ordinance adopted by the city council in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Sites are subject to the procedures in Chapter 21A.51, Local Historic Designations and Amendments. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.030. That Section 21A.50.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Initiation) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.030: INITIATION: Amendments to the text of this title or to the zoning map may be initiated by filing an application for an amendment addressed to the planning commission. Applications for amendments may be initiated by the mayor, the city council, the planning commission, or the owner of the property included in the application, or the property owner’s authorized agent. Applications related to the Homeless Resource Center Overlay shall be initiated as provided in Chapter 21A.34 of this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.040.B That Section 21A.50.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Fees) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: B. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this 26 title. Application and noticing fees filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. Application and noticing fees filed to establish a character conservation district shall not be required. SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.060 That Section 21A.50.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Limitation on Amendments) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 21A.50.060: LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS: A. No application for an amendment to this title shall be considered by the city council or the planning commission within one year of the withdrawal by the applicant or final decision of the city council upon a prior application covering substantially the same subject or substantially the same property. B. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an application pursuant to Section 21A.50.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not restrict the mayor, the city council or the planning commission from proposing any text amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the districts in this title at any time. SECTION 10. Adopting a new Chapter 21A.51 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of the Salt Lake City Code (Local Historic Designation and Amendments) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments and shall read as follows: Chapter 21A.51 LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATON & AMENDMENTS 21A.51.010: Purpose Statement 21A.51.020: Authority 21A.51.030: Local Historic Designation Process 21A.51.040: Local Historic Designation Criteria 21A.51.050: Existing Local Historic Amendment Process 21A.51.060: Existing Local Historic Amendment Criteria 21A.51.070: Limitations 21A.51.080: Historic Resource Surveys 21A.51.090: Appeal of Decision 27 21A.51.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments to the zoning map related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The H Historic Preservation Overlay District applies to all properties within the boundaries of a local historic district, part of a thematic designation, or a landmark site. 21A.51.020: AUTHORITY: A. Authority: Pursuant to the procedures and standards in this chapter and the standards for general amendments in Section 21A.50.050, the city council may amend the zoning map and apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District by the passage of an ordinance and: 1. Designate a landmark site; 2. Designate as a local historic district; 3. Designate as a thematic designation; 4. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation; 5. Revoke designation of a landmark site; 6. Adopt comprehensive historic resource surveys and associated reports for new landmark sites, local historic districts or thematic designations; and 7. Adopt updates to historic resource surveys and associated reports for existing local historic districts or thematic designations in accordance with the provisions in Section 21A.51.080. 21A.51.030: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS: Salt Lake City will consider the local designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which represent significant elements of the city’s prehistory, history, development patterns or architecture. Local designation must be in the best interest of the city and achieve a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. A. Process for Designation of a Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: 1. Procedures Required Before an Application Can be Submitted: Prior to the submittal of an application for the designation or amendment local historic district or thematic designation, and prior to gathering any signatures for an application, the following steps must be completed: a. Pre-application Conference: A potential applicant shall attend a pre-application conference with the planning director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is 28 to discuss the merits of the proposed designation and the amendment processes as outlined in this section. b. Notification to Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication conference outlined in Subsection A.1.a of this section, the city shall send by first class mail a neutral informational pamphlet to owners of record for each property potentially affected by a forthcoming application. The informational pamphlet shall be mailed after a potential applicant submits to the city a finalized proposed boundary of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of the process to create a local historic district or thematic designation and will also list the pros and cons of a local historic district or thematic designation. Once the city sends the informational pamphlet, gathering of property owner signatures may begin per Subsection A.2 of this section. The informational pamphlet sent shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an application is not filed with the city within ninety (90) days after the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed, the city shall close its file on the matter. Any subsequent proposal must begin the application process again. 2. Application: a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: The mayor or the city council, by a majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of a local historic district or thematic designation. A property owner submitting such application shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the interest in that lot or parcel. (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the thirty three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures obtained for that lot or parcel. (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed as required per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b and the date of the last required signature. 29 b. Submittal Requirements: An application shall be made to the zoning administrator on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator, which shall include at least the following information unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: (1) Information demonstrating the procedures in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b have been followed; (2) Information demonstrating the requirements in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.a have been met; (3) Street addresses and parcel numbers of all properties included in the proposed local designation; (4) Photos of all properties included in the proposed designation; (5) Narrative demonstrating compliance with the standards and considerations in Section 21A.51.040; and (6) Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for consideration of a particular application. c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a local historic district or thematic designation shall not be required. 3. Notice of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the city of an application for the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall send a notice of designation application letter to owner(s) of record for each property affected by said application along with a second copy of the informational pamphlet described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b. In the event that no application is received following the ninety (90) day period of property owner signature gathering, the city will send a letter to property owner(s) of record stating that no application has been filed, and that the city has closed its file on the matter. 4. Planning Director Report to the City Council: Following the receipt by the city of an application for the designation to a local historic district or thematic designation and following mailing of the notice of designation application letter described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3, the planning director shall submit a report based on the following considerations to the city council: a. Whether a current historic survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State Historic Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed 30 for a local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not available, the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. b. The city administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the planning division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new local historic district or thematic designation if the designation is approved by the city council. If sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed budget. c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent with the purposes and designation criteria in Section 21A.51.040 and the zoning map amendment criteria in Section 21A.50.050, “Standards for General Amendments”, of this title. f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3 of this section to all property owners within a proposed local historic district following the preapplication process outlined in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b. 5. Notification to Recognized Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 6. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the planning director’s report and acceptance of the report by the city council, the planning division will conduct a community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed boundaries of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation about the following: a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner support, the public hearing process, and final decision-making process by the city council; and b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review 31 process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the economic hardship process. 7. Open House: The planning division will conduct an open house pursuant to Section 2.60.050. 8. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of some modification of the proposal. 9. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: a. Following the completion of the historic landmark commission and planning commission public hearings, the city will deliver property owner opinion ballots via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the city council of property owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property owner opinion ballot. (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; (2) The city shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot for: (a) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; or (b) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and (c) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the city shall count a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the property owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who own at least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the city indicating the property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. 32 c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been received by the city within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the first property owner opinion ballot. 10. Notification of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the city will send notice of the results to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic designation. 11. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the historic landmark commission and the planning commission and the results of the property owner opinion ballot process, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title and the following: a. If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of returned property owner support ballots and represents more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a condominium) within the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic designation, the city council may designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a simple majority vote. b. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the threshold identified in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11.a the city council may only designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the city council. c. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in opposition is equal, the city council may only designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a super majority vote. B. Process for Designation of a Landmark Site: 1. Application: 33 a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: Any owner of property proposed for a landmark site, the mayor or the city council, by majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider the designation of a landmark site. b. Submittal Requirements: Applications for landmark sites shall provide at least all of the information in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.b unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator. c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a landmark site shall not be required. 2. Notification to Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 3. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of some modification of the proposal and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. 4. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the historic landmark commission and the planning commission, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a landmark site in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority vote, designate a landmark site. C. City Council Decision: Following city council designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, all of the properties located within the boundaries of the local historic district, landmark site, or thematic designation will be subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and subject to the provisions of Section 21A.34.020. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of the publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 1. Designation Adoption: Designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation includes adoption of the historic survey and associated report submitted for the designation. Historic resource surveys may be updated pursuant to the provisions in Section 21A.51.080 or Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 2. Notice of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall provide 34 notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 21A.51.040: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA: A. Standards for the Designation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: The proposed landmark site, local historic district, or thematic designation shall be evaluated according to the following: 1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following: a. Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance, or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and 2. Historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. When analyzing historic integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. 3. The proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 4. The proposed designation contains notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt Lake City; 5. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 6. The designation would be in the overall public interest. B. Factors to Consider: The following factors may be considered by the historic landmark commission and the city council to help determine whether the proposed designation of a 35 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the criteria listed above: 1. Sites are of an age that allows insight into whether a property is sufficiently important in the overall history of the community as identified in one or more periods of significance in a historic survey report. Typically, this is at least fifty (50) years but could be less if the property has exceptional importance. 2. Whether the proposed local historic district or thematic designation contains examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture that may not already be protected by other local historic districts within the city. 3. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation would add important knowledge that advances the understanding of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture. 4. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent applicable historic survey and those relate to identified significance and periods of significance. C. Boundaries of a Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to ensure that historical associations, that best enhance the integrity of the site comprise the boundaries. D. Boundaries of a Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the local historic district: 1. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or features rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 2. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, subdivision plats or property lines; 3. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized neighborhood boundaries; and 4. Contains noncontributing resources or vacant land only where necessary to create appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria in Subsections 21A.51.040.A and 21A.51.040.D. E. Boundaries of a Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation criteria of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic designation contains a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are associated by historical, 36 architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 21A.51.050: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT PROCESS: A. Applicability: Existing Local Historic Amendments applies to the following: 1. Expanding the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or adding additional properties to an existing thematic designation; 2. Reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or removing properties from an existing thematic designation; and 3. Revocation of the designation of a landmark site. B. Process for Amendments to Existing Local Historic Districts and Thematic Designations: 1. Boundary Expansion: The process for expanding the boundaries of an existing local historic district or adding properties to a thematic designation shall be the same as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that the following shall only apply to the properties being added into the proposed expanded boundary and do not apply to those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District: a. The notification to affected property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b; b. The application submittal requirements for demonstrating support of 33% of the property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2; c. The property owner meeting described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.6; d. The opinion ballot described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9; e. Notification of property owner opinion balloting results in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.10; and f. City council consideration opinion ballot thresholds described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11. 2. Boundary Reduction: The process for reducing the boundaries of an existing local historic district or removing properties from a thematic designation shall be the same as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that: a. The requirements described in Subsection 21A.51.050.B.1.a through f, shall only apply to those properties proposed to be removed from the local historic district or 37 thematic designation and do not apply to those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. b. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. C. Amendments to Existing Landmark Sites: 1. Boundary Expansion or Reduction or Revocation: The process for expanding or reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site or the revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall follow the steps outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.B in addition to: a. Fees: Applications for reducing the boundaries of a landmark site or for the revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. 21A.51.060: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT CRITERIA: A. Expansion: A proposed expansion of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or the addition of properties to a thematic designation shall be considered utilizing the provisions of Subsections 21A.51.040.A through E and provided that new information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would better convey the historical and architectural integrity of the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. B. Reduction: A proposed reduction of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district or the removal of properties from a thematic designation shall demonstrate the properties have no longer met the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A for inclusion within the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. The qualities that caused them to be originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such qualities were lost subsequent to the historic landmark commission recommendation and adoption of the designation. 38 C. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: A proposal for revocation of a landmark site shall demonstrate the property no longer meets the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A for which it was originally designated. 21A.51.070: LIMITATIONS: A. If a local historic district or thematic designation proposal fails in accordance with the voting procedures set forth in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9, a resident may not initiate the creation of a local historic district or thematic designation that includes more than fifty percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district or thematic designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the property owner opinion ballots for the vote were due. 1. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an application pursuant to Section 21A.51.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not restrict the mayor or the city council from initiating a petition at any time for a new local historic district or thematic designation, or to amend the boundaries of a local historic district or the removal or addition of properties in a thematic designation. 21A.51.080: HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEYS A. Existing Historic Resource Surveys: Any historic resource survey that was conducted for the city prior to the amendment of this chapter shall be utilized by the planning director and the historic landmark commission in applying provisions of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Any subsequent adoption of a historic resource survey will be done by ordinance in accordance with the provisions in this chapter and will supersede previous surveys. B. Updates to Historic Resource Surveys: 1. Applicability: The city aims to update historic resource surveys on a periodic basis as recommended by the National Park Service. Updates to surveys are for land use purposes to determine periods of significance, to determine historic status of individual properties, to update the national register, and to keep archival records on historic properties. Updates to a historic resource survey for existing local historic district is subject to the following: a. The standards of the H Historic Preservation Overlay apply to those properties within an adopted local historic district. Any other properties evaluated in a historic resource survey outside the boundary of a designated local district or thematic designation will not be subject to the land use regulations associated with historic status designations in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 39 b. An updated historic resource survey maintains the boundaries of a local historic or the properties within a thematic designation but may update the historic status of properties within the adopted H Historic Preservation Overlay District. c. Historic Status Determinations: Instances where the historic status of an individual property within a local historic district is in question, the zoning administrator will use the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.D to make a timely determination. d. Any properties changing status from the most recent historic resource survey shall be specifically identified in the updated survey and their period of significance and historic status listed. 2. Process for Updating Historic Resource Surveys: a. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning commission shall recommend approval or denial of the updated historic resource survey or the approval of some modification of the updated historic resource survey and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. b. City Council: Following the transmittal of the historic landmark commission’s recommendation, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider adopting the updated historic survey in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority vote, adopt the updated historic resource survey. In deciding to adopt an updated historic resource survey, the city council may consider the following in their decision making: (1) Any benefit or impact that extending the period of significance would have on the local district or thematic designation and the city; (2) Any new period of significance in the updated survey is identified and associated with at least one of the following: (a) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or (b) Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or 40 (c) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or (d) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and (3) Any properties within a new period of significance will be assessed for aspects of integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service Aspects of integrity. When analyzing integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. If integrity is intact, the property is denoted as contributing in the updated survey; (4) Any notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt Lake City are specifically identified for any new periods of significance in the updated survey; (5) The historic survey update would be in the overall public interest. C. City Council Action: If an updated historic resource survey is adopted by the city council, the updated historic resource survey including any updated historic status designations shall be used when applying provisions of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in Section 21A.34.020. The decision to update a historic resource survey will go into effect on the date of the publication of the related ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 21A.51.090: APPEAL OF DECISION: Any party adversely affected by the decision of the city council may, within thirty (30) days after such decision, file a petition for review to the District Court pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act, Section 10-9a-801, of the Utah Code. SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order: 41 Contributing Structure Noncontributing Structure Demolition (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) Demolition, Partial (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) Historic Design Guidelines Historic Integrity Economic Hardship Historic Resource Survey Landmark Site Local Historic District Period of Significance Thematic Designation Willful Neglect SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add the following definitions, which shall be inserted in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H historic preservation overlay district that has been determined through the process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, to generally retain historic integrity. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a district. A contributing structure generally has its major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred, they are generally reversible. DEMOLITION (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Any act or process which destroys a structure, object or property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. (See definition of demolition, partial.) DEMOLITION, PARTIAL (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Partial demolition includes any act which destroys a portion of a structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the floor area of the structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty 42 five percent (25%) when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a structure and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or economically viable use of a property without just compensation. HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES: The historic design guidelines provide guidance in determining the suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, alteration or new construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that meet current needs of properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. For architects, designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning and designing future projects. For city staff and the historic landmark commission, they provide guidance for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines are officially adopted by city council. HISTORIC INTEGRITY: The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or attributes. As defined by the National Park Service, the following aspects or qualities, in various combinations, define historic integrity: Location- Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where a historic event occurred. Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling: Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Historic resource surveys shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum professional qualifications defined by the U.S. National Park Service in the fields of history, archeology, architectural history, architecture, or historic architecture. 43 LANDMARK SITE: Any historic site that has been designated in accordance with Subsection 21A.51.030.B or any site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. A landmark site includes an individual building, structure or feature or an integrated group of buildings, structures or features on a single site. Such sites are of exceptional importance to the city, state, region or nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site. Landmark sites are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020, the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A contiguous geographically definable area with a minimum district size of one “block face”, as defined in Section 21A.62.040, designated by the city council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which contains buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape features, archaeological sites and works of art, or a combination thereof, that contributes to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. All properties within a local historic district are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District that has been determined noncontributing through the process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, and does not retain historic integrity. The major character defining features have been so altered as to make the historic form, materials or details indistinguishable and such alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may also include those rated out of period, and therefore, they are not representative of a period of significance as identified in an adopted historic resource survey. PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: The period of significance is the period when the historic events associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site occurred. This period must reflect the dates associated with the property or site, or in the case of a district, the collection of properties within the district. A period of significance may be thousands of years (in the case of an archeological property), several years, or even a few days, depending on the duration of the event. There may be multiple periods of significance associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site. THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or features designated by City Council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. All properties within a thematic designation are subject to the regulations of Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a building over time. 44 SECTION 13. Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule. That the section of the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule titled, “Zoning Fees” shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: ZONING FEES For question regarding Zoning fees contact: 801.535.7700 Service Fee Additional Information Section Determination of Nonconforming Use $214 21A.38.025.4 Administrative Interpretation $71 Plus $61 per hour for research after the first hour 21A.12.040.A.6 Alley Vacation/Closure $285 Fee waiver available if adequate signatures are obtained. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 14.52.030. A.5 Alternative Parking Residential $428 21A.52.040 .A.3 Nonresidential $785 21A.52.040 .A.3 Amendments Master plan $1,070 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (10.9a.204). Utah Code 10.9A.510 Zoning map amendment $1,142 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.50.040.B Zoning text amendment $1,142 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.50.040.B Annexation $1,427 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) Utah Code 10.2.401.5 Appeal of a Decision Administrative decision $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Historic Landmark Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Planning Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Appearance Before the Zoning Enforcement Hearing Office First scheduled hearing No charge 21A.20.90 Second scheduled hearing $71 21A.20.90 Billboard Construction or Demolition including the demolition of a non-conforming billboard $285 21A.46.160.D.3 & 21A.46.160.L.2 Conditional Building and Site Design Review $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.59.070.B Conditional Use $856 See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 21A.54.060.C Condominium Preliminary $571 Plus $37 per unit. See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 20.56.40.B Final $428 Plus $24 per unit. 20.56.40.B Declaration of Surplus Real Property $428 2.58.040 45 Historic Landmarks Commission Review (Application) Major Alterations of a principal building $100 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 New construction of a principal building $2,982 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Demolition of a contributing principal building $2,406 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Relocation of a contributing principal building $303 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Reduction to boundaries of the H Historic Pres. Overlay District $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 Revocation of a Landmark Site $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 Economic Hardship $2,050 Plus $200/hour up to $20,000. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Home Occupation Non-conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Outdoor Dining Outdoor Dining Application $30 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (1-5 tables) $120 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (6 or more tables) $180 21A.40.065 Planned Development $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of (1) acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.55 Signs Permit fee for signs Based on the adopted Building Permit Fee Schedule 21A.46.030 Plan checking fee $0.13 Of building permit value 21A.46.030 Inspection tag $14 21A.46.030 Site Development Permit $285 Plus $61 per acre in excess of one (1) acre 18.28.040.E Street Closure $428 See also fee for required public notices. 2.58.040 Subdivision Amendments $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Final Plat $856 Plus $121 per lot. 20.04.120 Subdivision Vacations $428 See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Engineering Review and Inspection Fee 5% of the 1st $100,000 of public improvemen ts & 2% for the amount above $100,000 20.04.120 Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $284 20.04.120 Subdivision Consolidating Lots $273 20.04.120 Temporary Uses $285 21A.42.060.B Zoning Variance $428 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.18.040.B 46 As per applicable sections of the city and/or state code, a fee will be assessed for required public notices. This may include sending notice by 1st class U.S. Mail to property owners within a certain radius of the subject property and / or advertising required public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. A fee for each required public hearing will be assessed. The noticing fee is authorized through the following sections of the zoning ordinance and state law: Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.010.E and Utah Code Section 10-9a-501. SECTION 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending H Historic Preservation Overlay District regs (final) 6.29.23 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 29, 2023 1 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2023 2 3 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code 4 pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and 5 amending the consolidated fee schedule.) 6 7 An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code and the 8 consolidated fee schedule pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123 pertaining to the H 9 Historic Preservation Overlay District. 10 WHEREAS, on May 4, 2023, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission 11 (“Landmark Commission”) held a public hearing to consider a petition submitted by Mayor Erin 12 Mendenhall (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00123) to amend various sections of 13 Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District; 14 and 15 WHEREAS, at its May 4, 2023 meeting, the Landmark Commission voted in favor of 16 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning 17 Commission”) and the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petition; and 18 WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said 19 petition; and 20 WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 21 transmitting a positive recommendation to the City Council on said petition; and 22 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 23 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 24 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 25 2 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.040. That 26 Section 21A.06.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: 27 Appeals Hearing Officer) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 28 21A.06.040: APPEALS HEARING OFFICER: 29 A. Creation: The position of Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer is created pursuant to the enabling 30 authority granted by the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, 31 sSection 10-9a-701 of the Utah Code Annotated. 32 33 B. Jurisdiction aAnd Authority: The Aappeals Hhearing Oofficer shall have the following 34 powers and duties in connection with the implementation of this title: 35 36 1. Hear and decide appeals from any administrative decision made by the Zzoning 37 Aadministrator in the administration or the enforcement of this title pursuant to the 38 procedures and standards set forth in cChapter 21A.16, “Appeals oOf Administrative 39 Decisions”, of this title; 40 41 2. Authorize variances from the terms of this title pursuant to the procedures and 42 standards set forth in cChapter 21A.18, “Variances”, of this title; 43 44 3. Hear and decide appeals of any administrative decision made by the Hhistoric 45 Llandmark Ccommission, or the planning director in the case of administrative 46 decisions, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in sSection 21A.34.020, 47 “H Historic Preservation Overlay District”, of this title; 48 49 4. Hear and decide appeals from decisions made by the Pplanning Ccommission 50 concerning subdivisions or subdivision amendments pursuant to the procedures and 51 standards set forth in title 20, “Subdivisions aAnd Condominiums”, of this Ccode; 52 and 53 54 5. Hear and decide appeals from administrative decisions made by the planning 55 commission pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this title. 56 57 C. Qualifications: The appeals hearing officer shall be appointed by the mayor with the 58 advice and consent of the city council. The mayor may appoint more than one appeals 59 hearing officer, but only one appeals hearing officer shall consider and decide upon any 60 matter properly presented for appeals hearing officer review. The appeals hearing officer 61 may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive full terms of five (5) years each. The 62 appeals hearing officer shall either be law trained or have significant experience with 63 land use laws and the requirements and operations of administrative hearing processes. 64 65 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT D. Conflict oOf Interest: The appeals hearing officer shall not participate in any appeal in 66 which the appeals hearing officer has a conflict of interest prohibited by tTitle 67 2, cChapter 2.44 of this code. 68 69 E. Removal oOf The Appeals Hearing Officer: The appeals hearing officer may be removed 70 by the mayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures adopted by the 71 planning director following receipt by the mayor of a written complaint filed against the 72 appeals hearing officer. If requested by the appeals hearing officer, the mayor shall 73 provide the appeals hearing officer with a public hearing conducted by a hearing officer 74 appointed by the mayor. 75 76 SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.06.050. That 77 Section 21A.06.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Decision Making Bodies and Officials: 78 Historic Landmark Commission) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 79 21A.06.050: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: 80 81 A. General Provisions: The provisions of tTitle 2, cChapter 2.07 of this code shall apply to 82 the historic landmark commission except as otherwise set forth in this section. 83 84 B. Creation: The historic landmark commission was created pursuant to the enabling 85 authority granted by the hHistoric dDistrict aAct, sSection 11-18-1 et seq., of the Utah 86 Code Annotated, 1953 (repealed), and continues under the authority of Utah Code 87 Section 10-8-85.9 and the lLand uUse dDevelopment and mManagement aAct, Utah 88 cCode cChapter 10-9a. 89 90 C. Jurisdiction Aand Authority: The historic landmark commission shall: 91 92 1. Review and approve or deny an application for a certificate of appropriateness 93 pursuant to the provisions of cChapter 21A.34 of this title; 94 95 2. Participate in public education programs to increase public awareness of the value of 96 historic, architectural and cultural preservation; Communicate the benefits of historic 97 preservation for the education, prosperity, and general welfare of residents, visitors 98 and tourists; 99 100 3. Review and approve or deny applications for the demolition of contributing principal 101 structures in the H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay dDistrict pursuant to cChapter 102 21A.34 of this title; 103 104 4 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4. Review designations, amendments to and boundaries of a local historic district, 105 thematic designation and landmark sites, and make a recommendation Recommend to 106 the planning commission and the city council; the boundaries for the establishment of 107 an H historic preservation overlay district and landmark sites; 108 109 5. Make recommendations when requested by the planning commission, the hearing 110 officer or the city council, as appropriate, on applications for zoning amendments and 111 conditional uses involving properties within the H hHistoric pPreservation oOverlay 112 dDistricts; when requested by the applicant, planning director, planning commission 113 or the city council; 114 115 6. Review and approve or deny certain modifications to dimensional standards for 116 properties located within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District. This authority 117 is also granted to the planning director or designee for applications within the H 118 Historic Preservation Overlay District that are eligible for an administrative approval 119 decision by the planning director or zoning administrator. The certain modifications 120 to zoning district specific development standards are listed as follows and are in 121 addition to any modification authorized elsewhere in this title: 122 123 a. Overall building and accessory structure height; 124 ba. Building and accessory structure wall height; 125 b. Accessory structure wall height; 126 c. Accessory structure square footage; 127 d. Fence and retaining wall height; 128 e. Overall building and accessory structure height; 129 ef. Signs pursuant to sSection 21A.46.070 of this title; and 130 fg. Any modification to bulk and lot regulations, except density, of the underlying 131 zoning district where it is found that the proposal complies with the applicable 132 standards identified in sSection 21A.34.020 and is compatible with the 133 surrounding historic structures.; 134 7. Make recommendations to the planning commission in connection with the 135 preparation of the general plan of the city; and 136 137 8. Make recommendations to the cCity cCouncil on design guidelines, policies and 138 ordinances that may encourage preservation of buildings and related structures of 139 historical and architectural significance.; 140 141 9. Review historic resource surveys for designations and all subsequent updates and 142 make recommendations to the planning commission and the city council; 143 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 144 10. Review National Register of Historic Places nominations or amendments and make a 145 recommendation to the Utah Board of State History; and 146 147 11. Recommend to the city council development of incentive programs, either public or 148 private, to encourage the preservation of the city’s historic resources. 149 150 D. Membership: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall consist of not less than seven 151 (7) nor more than eleven (11) voting members appointed in a manner providing balanced 152 geographic, professional, neighborhood and community interests representation. In 153 situations where a member resigns or is removed as prescribed in this code and adopted 154 policies and procedures and as a result, the number of members drops to less than seven 155 (7), the commission may still function until a 7th member is appointed. Appointment to a 156 position created by any vacancy shall not be included in the determination of any 157 person’s eligibility to serve two (2) consecutive full terms. 158 159 E. Qualifications Oof Members: Each voting member shall be a resident of the Ccity 160 interested in preservation and knowledgeable about the heritage of the Ccity. Members 161 shall be selected so as to ideally provide representation from the following groups of 162 experts and interested parties whenever a qualified candidate exists: 163 164 1. At least two (2) architects, and 165 166 2. Citizens Residents at large possessing preservation related experience in archaeology, 167 architecture, architectural history, construction, history, folk studies, law, public 168 history, real estate, real estate appraisal, or urban planning. 169 170 F. Meetings: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall meet at least once per month or 171 as needed. 172 173 G. Commission Action: A simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting at 174 which a quorum is present shall be required for any action taken. The decision of the 175 Historic Landmark Commission shall become effective upon the posting of the record of 176 decision. 177 178 H. Public Hearings: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall schedule and give public 179 notice of all public hearings pursuant to the provisions of cChapter 21A.10 of this title. 180 181 I. Removal Oof Aa Member: Any member of the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission may 182 be removed by the Mmayor for violation of this title or any policies and procedures 183 adopted by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission following receipt by the Mmayor of a 184 written complaint filed against the member. 185 186 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT J. Policies aAnd Procedures: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall adopt policies 187 and procedures for the conduct of its meetings, the processing of applications and for any 188 other purposes considered necessary for its proper functioning. 189 190 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.020.B. That 191 Subsection 21A.010.020.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: General Application and Public 192 Hearing Procedures: Public Hearing Noticing Requirements: Special Noticing Requirements for 193 Administrative Approvals) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 194 B. Special Noticing Requirements fFor Administrative Approvals: 195 196 1. Notice Oof Application for Design Review: 197 198 a. Notification: At least twelve (12) days before a land use decision is made for an 199 administrative design review application as authorized in Chapter 21A.59 of this 200 title, the planning director shall provide written notice to the following: 201 202 (1) All owners and identifiable tenants of the subject property, land abutting the 203 subject property, and land located directly across the street from the subject 204 property. In identifying the owners and tenants of the land the city shall use 205 the Salt Lake City geographic information system records. 206 (2) Recognized community organization(s) in which the subject property is 207 located. 208 209 b. Contents of the Notice of Application: The notice shall generally describe the 210 subject matter of the application, where the public may review the application, the 211 expected date when the planning director will authorize a final land use decision, 212 and the procedures to appeal the land use decision. 213 c. End of Notification Period: If the planning director receives comments identifying 214 concerns related to the design review application not complying with the 215 requirements of Chapter 21A.59, the planning director may refer the matter to the 216 planning commission for their review and decision on the application. 217 218 2. Notice of Application for Demolition of a Noncontributing Principal Structure Within 219 An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: Prior to the approval of At least twelve 220 (12) days before a land use decision is made on an application for an administrative 221 decision for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a noncontributing 222 principal structure, the city shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum 223 of twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the requested action of the request to 224 demolish the structure and to identify that a determination has been made that the 225 building has been identified as a noncontributing building. This notice will be sent to 226 all owners of the land and tenants, of abutting properties and those properties across 227 the street from the subject property within eighty-five feet (85') of the land subject to 228 7 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT the application as shown on the Salt Lake City geographic information system 229 records. At the end of the twelve (12) day notice period, the planning director shall 230 either issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or refer the application to 231 the historic landmark commission. 232 233 a. Contents of the Notice of Application: The mailing notice shall generally describe 234 the subject property, include a vicinity map, include a photograph of the 235 noncontributing structure, date of construction, historic status from the most 236 recent historic survey on file or from a historic status determination, where the 237 application can be inspected by the public, and the date when the planning 238 director will issue a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 239 240 3. Notice Of Application For Special Exceptions: Prior to the approval of an 241 administrative decision for special exceptions as authorized in chapter 21A.52 of this 242 title, the Planning Director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum 243 of twelve (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and 244 those properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property 245 owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake 246 City geographic information system records. 247 a. Contents Of The Mailing Notice Of Application: The notice for mailing shall 248 generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such 249 application may be inspected by the public, the date when the Planning Director 250 will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal 251 an administrative decision set forth in chapter 21A.16 of this title. 252 253 3. Notice oOf Application fFor TSA Development Reviews: Prior to the approval of a 254 development review score as authorized in Section 21A.26.078 of this title, the 255 planning director shall provide written notice by first class mail a minimum of twelve 256 (12) days in advance of the requested action to all abutting properties and those 257 properties located across the street from the subject property, and to all property 258 owners and tenants of the land subject to the application, as shown on the Salt Lake 259 City geographic information system records. 260 a. Contents oOf tThe Mailing Notice oOf Application: The notice for mailing shall 261 generally describe the subject matter of the application, the place where such 262 application may be inspected by the public, the date when the planning director 263 will authorize a final administrative decision, and include the procedures to appeal 264 an administrative decision set forth in Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 265 266 8 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.34.020. That 267 Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Overlay Districts: H Historic 268 Preservation Overlay District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 269 21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: 270 271 A. Purpose Statement 272 B. Applicability 273 C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments or Revocation 274 D. Historic Status Determination 275 E. Certificate of Appropriateness Required 276 F. Procedures for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness 277 G. Standards for Alteration of a Landmark Site, Contributing Structure or New 278 Construction of an Accessory Structure 279 H. Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure 280 I. Standards for Relocation 281 J. Standards for Demolition of a Landmark Site 282 K. Standards for Demolition of a Contributing Principal Building 283 L. Economic Hardship Determination 284 285 286 A. Purpose Statement: 287 288 In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City, 289 the purpose of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District is to: 290 291 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the Ccity and individual structures 292 and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance; 293 294 2. Provide the means to manage alterations to historic structures to encourage beneficial 295 use and viability of the building while protecting an individual building’s contributing 296 status. 297 298 32. Encourage new development, and redevelopment and the subdivision of properties 299 lots in Historic Districts that is compatible with the character of existing development 300 of Hhistoric Ddistricts or individual landmarks; 301 302 43. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 303 304 54. Implement adopted plans of the Ccity related to historic preservation; 305 306 65. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 307 308 9 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 76. Protect and enhance the attraction of the Ccity’s historic landmarks and districts for 309 tourists and visitors; 310 311 87. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 312 313 98. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability. 314 315 B. Definitions: 316 CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic Preservation 317 Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C15 of this section and is of 318 moderate importance to the City, State, region or Nation because it imparts artistic, historic 319 or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character defining features intact and 320 although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic 321 materials may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact. 322 DEMOLITION: Any act or process which destroys a structure, object or property within the 323 H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. (See definition of demolition, 324 partial.) 325 DEMOLITION, PARTIAL: Partial demolition includes any act which destroys a portion of a 326 structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) of the floor area of the 327 structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is not readily visible from 328 the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal of additions or materials 329 not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty five percent (25%) 330 when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic elements of a structure 331 and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. 332 DESIGN GUIDELINES: The design guidelines provide guidance in determining the 333 suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, alteration or new 334 construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that meet current needs 335 of properties located within the Historic Preservation Overlay District. For architects, 336 designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning and designing 337 future projects. For City staff and the Historic Landmark Commission, they provide guidance 338 for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines are officially 339 adopted by City Council. 340 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or 341 economically viable use of a property without just compensation. 342 HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the 343 quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the 344 guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 345 1. Reconnaissance level surveys (RLS) are the most basic approach for systematically 346 documenting and evaluating historic buildings in Utah communities and involves 347 only a visual evaluation of properties. 348 10 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Intensive level surveys (ILS) include in depth research involving research on the 349 property and its owners, documentation of the property’s physical appearance and 350 completion of the Utah State Historic Office’s historic site form. 351 LANDMARK SITE: Any site included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources 352 that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C15 of this section. Such sites are of exceptional 353 importance to the City, State, region or Nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural 354 values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to 355 interpret the historic character of the site. 356 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A geographically or thematically definable area within the 357 H Historic Preservation Overlay District designated by the City Council pursuant to the 358 provisions of this section, which contains buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape 359 features, archaeological sites and works of art, or a combination thereof, that contributes to 360 the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. 361 NEW CONSTRUCTION: The building of a new principal building within the H Historic 362 Preservation Overlay District or on a landmark site. 363 NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure within the H Historic Preservation 364 Overlay District that does not meet the criteria listed in subsection C15 of this section. The 365 major character defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic 366 form, materials and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing 367 structures may also include those which are less than fifty (50) years old. 368 THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or 369 features which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united 370 together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic 371 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic 372 interest or value. 373 WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a 374 building over time. 375 B. Applicability: All properties located within the boundaries of a local historic district, part 376 of a thematic designation, or designated as a landmark site are subject to the requirements 377 of this chapter. 378 379 1. Applicable Standards: The applicable standards of this chapter are determined by the 380 historic status rating of the property, either contributing or noncontributing, as 381 identified in the most recent historic resource survey on file with the Salt Lake City 382 Planning Division or a historic status determination issued in accordance with 383 Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 384 385 C. Local Historic Designation, Amendments, or Revocation: Local Historic Designation, 386 Adjustment, Expansion, or Revocation oOf aA Landmark Site, Local Historic District 387 oOr Thematic Designation shall follow the applicable procedures and standards in 388 11 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments.; H Historic Preservation 389 Overlay District: 390 391 1. Intent: Salt Lake City will consider the designation of a landmark site, or thematic 392 designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which represent 393 significant elements of the City’s prehistory, history, development patterns or 394 architecture. Designation of a local historic district must be in the best interest of the 395 City and achieve a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public 396 interest in preserving the City’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. The City 397 Council shall determine that designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 398 thematic designation is the best method of preserving a unique element of history 399 important to understanding the prehistory or history of the area encompassed by the 400 current Salt Lake City corporate boundaries. 401 2. City Council May Designate Or Amend Landmark Sites, Local Historic Districts Or 402 Thematic Designations: Pursuant to the procedures in this section and the standards 403 for general amendments in section 21A.50.050 of this title the City Council may by 404 ordinance apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and: 405 a. Designate as a landmark site an individual building, structure or feature or an 406 integrated group of buildings, structures or features on a single lot or site having 407 exceptional importance to the City, State, region or Nation and impart high 408 artistic, historic or cultural values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of 409 time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site; 410 b. Designate as a local historic district a contiguous area with a minimum district 411 size of one “block face”, as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title, containing 412 a number of sites, buildings, structures or features that contribute to the historic 413 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or 414 aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the City; 415 c. Designate as a thematic designation a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or 416 features which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that 417 are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and 418 contribute to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting 419 historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value; and 420 d. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark 421 site, local historic district or thematic designation. 422 3. Preapplication Conference: Prior to the submittal of an application for the designation 423 or amendment to a landmark site(s), local historic district(s) or thematic 424 designation(s), and prior to gathering any signatures in support of such an application, 425 a potential applicant shall attend a preapplication conference with the Planning 426 Director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the merits of the 427 proposed designation and the amendment processes as outlined in this section. 428 4. Notification Of Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication conference 429 outlined in subsection C3 of this section and prior to the submittal of an application 430 12 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT for the designation or amendment to a local historic district(s) or thematic 431 designation(s), the City shall send by first class mail a neutral informational pamphlet 432 to owners of record for each property potentially affected by a forthcoming 433 application. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of 434 the process to create a local historic district and will also list the pros and cons of a 435 local historic district. The informational pamphlet shall be mailed after a potential 436 applicant submits to the City a finalized proposed boundary of an area to be included 437 in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Once the City sends the informational 438 pamphlet, property owner signature gathering may begin per subsection C5b of this 439 section. The informational pamphlet sent shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an 440 application is not filed with the City within ninety (90) days after the date that the 441 informational pamphlet was mailed, the City shall close its file on the matter. Any 442 subsequent proposal must begin the application process again. 443 5. Petition Initiation For Designation Of A Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 444 Thematic Designation: 445 a. Petition Initiation For H Historic Preservation Overlay District; Landmark Site: 446 Any owner of property proposed for a landmark site, the Mayor or the City 447 Council, by majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider the designation of a 448 landmark site. 449 b. Petition Initiation For H Historic Preservation Overlay District; Local Historic 450 District Or Thematic Designation: A property owner initiating such a petition 451 shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of 452 the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to 453 be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The Mayor or the 454 City Council, by a majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of 455 a local historic district or thematic designation. 456 (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be 457 included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is 458 signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the 459 interest in that lot or parcel. 460 (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the 461 thirty three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures 462 obtained for that lot or parcel. 463 (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent 464 (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local 465 historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of 466 ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet 467 was mailed as required per subsection C4 of this section and the date of the 468 last required signature. 469 c. Fees: No application fee will be required for a petition initiated by a property 470 owner for designation of a property to the H Historic Preservation Overlay 471 District. 472 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 6. Notice Of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the City of an 473 application for the designation or amendment to a local historic district(s) or thematic 474 designation(s), the City shall send a notice of designation application letter to 475 owner(s) of record for each property affected by said application along with a second 476 copy of the informational pamphlet described in subsection C4 of this section. In the 477 event that no application is received following the ninety (90) day period of property 478 owner signature gathering, the City will send a letter to property owner(s) of record 479 stating that no application has been filed, and that the City has closed its file on the 480 matter. 481 7. Planning Director Report To The City Council: Following the initiation of a petition 482 to designate a landmark site or a local historic district or thematic designation, the 483 Planning Director shall submit a report based on the following considerations to the 484 City Council: 485 a. Whether a current survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State Historic 486 Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed for a 487 local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not available, 488 the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. 489 b. The City administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine 490 whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the 491 Planning Division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource 492 analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new landmark site, local 493 historic district or thematic designation if the designation is approved by the City 494 Council. If sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed 495 budget. 496 c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, 497 objectives and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning 498 documents. 499 d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. 500 e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local 501 historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent 502 with the purposes and designation criteria in subsection C15 of this section and 503 the zoning map amendment criteria in section 21A.50.050, “Standards For 504 General Amendments”, of this title. 505 f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per subsection C4 of 506 this section to all property owners within a proposed local historic district 507 following the presubmittal process outlined in subsection C3 of this section. 508 8. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the Planning Director’s report 509 and acceptance of the report by the City Council, the Planning Division will conduct 510 a community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed 511 boundaries of the proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic 512 designation about the following: 513 14 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner 514 support, the public hearing process, and final decision making process by the City 515 Council; and 516 b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic 517 Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review 518 process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the 519 economic hardship process. 520 9. Open House: Following the property owner meeting, the Planning Division will 521 conduct an open house for the owners of property within the proposed boundaries of 522 the local historic district or thematic designation to provide the information described 523 in subsections C8a and C8b of this section. 524 10. Public Hearing Process: 525 a. Historic Landmark Commission Consideration: Following the initiation of a 526 petition to designate a landmark site or a local historic district, the Historic 527 Landmark Commission shall hold a public hearing and review the request by 528 applying subsection C15, “Standards For The Designation Of A Landmark Site, 529 Local Historic District Or Thematic Designation”, of this section. Following the 530 public hearing, the Historic Landmark Commission shall recommend approval, 531 approval with modifications or denial of the proposed designation and shall then 532 submit its recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. 533 b. Planning Commission Consideration: Following action by the Historic Landmark 534 Commission, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and shall 535 recommend approval, approval with modifications or denial of the proposed 536 designation based on the standards of section 21A.50.050 of this title, zoning map 537 amendments and shall then submit its recommendation to the City Council. 538 11. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: 539 a. Following the completion of the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning 540 Commission public hearings, the City will deliver property owner opinion ballots 541 via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the 542 proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner 543 opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the City Council of property 544 owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each 545 individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the 546 number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property 547 owner opinion ballot. 548 (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property 549 owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; 550 (2) The Municipality shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot 551 for: 552 (A) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district 553 or area; or 554 15 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (B) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the 555 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and 556 (3) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the Municipality shall 557 count a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the 558 property owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who 559 own at least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. 560 b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the 561 property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the City indicating the 562 property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. 563 c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic 564 district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been 565 received by the City within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This 566 follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner 567 opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the 568 first property owner opinion ballot. 569 12. Notification Of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public 570 opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the City will send notice of the results 571 to all property owners within the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic 572 designation. 573 13. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the Historic Landmark 574 Commission and the Planning Commission recommendations and the results of the 575 property owner opinion process, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to 576 consider the designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic 577 designation. 578 a. Designation Of A Landmark Site: The City Council may, by a majority vote, 579 designate a landmark site. 580 b. Designation Of A Local Historic District Or Thematic Designation: 581 (1) If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) 582 of the total number of returned property owner support ballots, and represents 583 more than fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a 584 condominium project) within the proposed local historic district, area, or 585 thematic designation, the City Council may designate a local historic district 586 or a thematic district by a simple majority vote. 587 588 (2) If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the 589 threshold identified in subsection C13b(1) of this section, the City Council 590 may only designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an 591 affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the City Council. 592 (3) If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in 593 opposition is equal, the City Council may only designate a local historic 594 district or a thematic district by a super majority vote. 595 16 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT c. Following Designation: Following City Council designation of a landmark site, 596 local historic district or thematic designation, all of the property located within the 597 boundaries of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be subject to the 598 provisions of this section. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of 599 the publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adoption ordinance. 600 14. Notice Of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a 601 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the City shall provide 602 notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic 603 Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the Office of 604 the County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H Historic 605 Preservation Overlay District. 606 15. Standards For The Designation Of A Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 607 Thematic Designation: Each lot or parcel of property proposed as a landmark site, for 608 inclusion in a local historic district, or for thematic designation shall be evaluated 609 according to the following: 610 a. Significance in local, regional, State or national history, architecture, engineering 611 or culture, associated with at least one of the following: 612 (1) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 613 history, or 614 (2) Lives of persons significant in the history of the City, region, State, or 615 Nation, or 616 (3) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or 617 the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 618 (4) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of 619 Salt Lake City; and 620 b. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 621 feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service for the National 622 Register of Historic Places; 623 c. The proposed local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible 624 to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 625 d. The proposed local historic district contains notable examples of elements of the 626 City’s history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other 627 local historic districts within Salt Lake City; 628 e. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 629 f. The designation would be in the overall public interest. 630 16. Factors To Consider: The following factors may be considered by the Historic 631 Landmark Commission and the City Council to help determine whether the proposed 632 designation of a landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the 633 criteria listed above: 634 17 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. Sites should be of such an age which would allow insight into whether a property 635 is sufficiently important in the overall history of the community. Typically this is 636 at least fifty (50) years but could be less if the property has exceptional 637 importance. 638 b. Whether the proposed local historic district contains examples of elements of the 639 City’s history, development patterns and/or architecture that may not already be 640 protected by other local historic districts within the City. 641 c. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district would add important 642 knowledge that advances the understanding of the City’s history, development 643 patterns and/or architecture. 644 d. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the 645 proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent 646 applicable historic survey. 647 17. Boundaries Of A Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in 648 subsection C15 of this section, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to 649 ensure that historical associations, and/or those which best enhance the integrity of 650 the site comprise the boundaries. 651 18. Boundaries Of A Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation 652 criteria in subsection C15 of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the 653 local historic district: 654 a. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or 655 features rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 656 b. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, 657 subdivision plats or property lines; 658 c. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized 659 neighborhood boundaries; and 660 d. Contains nonhistoric resources or vacant land only where necessary to create 661 appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria of subsection C15 of this section. 662 19. Boundaries Of A Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation 663 criteria of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic 664 designation contains a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are 665 united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute 666 to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, 667 architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 668 D. The Adjustment Or Expansion Of Boundaries Of An H Historic Preservation Overlay 669 District And The Revocation Of The Designation Of Landmark Site: 670 1. Procedure: The procedure for the adjustment of boundaries of an H Historic 671 Preservation Overlay District and the revocation of the designation of a landmark site 672 shall be the same as that outlined in subsection C of this section. 673 18 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Criteria For Adjusting The Boundaries Of An H Historic Preservation Overlay 674 District: Criteria for adjusting the boundaries of an H Historic Preservation Overlay 675 District are as follows: 676 a. The properties have ceased to meet the criteria for inclusion within an H Historic 677 Preservation Overlay District because the qualities which caused them to be 678 originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such qualities were lost 679 subsequent to the Historic Landmark Commission recommendation and adoption 680 of the district; 681 b. Additional information indicates that the properties do not comply with the 682 criteria for selection of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District as outlined in 683 subsection C15 of this section; or 684 c. Additional information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would 685 better convey the historical and architectural integrity of the H Historic 686 Preservation Overlay District, provided they meet the standards outlined in 687 subsection C15 of this section. 688 3. Criteria For The Expansion Of An Existing Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or 689 Thematic Designation: A proposed expansion of an existing landmark site, local 690 historic district or thematic designation shall be considered utilizing the provisions of 691 subsections C15 through C19 of this section. 692 4. Criteria For The Revocation Of The Designation Of A Landmark Site: Criteria are as 693 follows: 694 a. The property has ceased to meet the criteria for designation as a landmark site 695 because the qualities that caused it to be originally designated have been lost or 696 destroyed or the structure has been demolished; or 697 b. Additional information indicates that the landmark site does not comply with the 698 criteria for selection of a landmark site as outlined in subsection C15 of this 699 section; or 700 c. Additional information indicates that the landmark site is not of exceptional 701 importance to the City, State, region or Nation. 702 D. Historic Status Determination: 703 704 1. Purpose: Historic status determinations are to address the historic status of individual 705 structures within a local historic district on a case-by-case basis through robust review 706 of documentation in order to render a timely decision on the historic status for 707 circumstances outlined below. 708 709 2. Applicability: Historic status determinations may be rendered for properties within an 710 existing local historic district using the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 711 to determine whether they are contributing or noncontributing to the local historic 712 district for the following: 713 714 19 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. Unrated Properties: Properties that were inadvertently missed in a survey or not 715 given a historic status rating; 716 717 b. Incorrectly Rated Properties: Properties that may have been given an incorrect 718 status rating in a survey; 719 720 3. Authority: Historic status determinations shall be made by the zoning administrator in 721 the form of an administrative interpretation. 722 723 4. Persons Entitled to Seek Historic Status Determinations: Application for a historic 724 status determination may be made by the owner of the subject property or the owner’s 725 authorized agent. The planning director may also initiate a petition for a historic 726 status determination. 727 728 5. Limitations: A historic status determination shall not: 729 730 a. Change the boundaries of the local historic district; 731 b. Be issued for landmark sites; 732 c. Be issued for structures that are not within period of significance in an adopted 733 historic resource survey. 734 735 6. Application for Historic Status Determination: An administrative interpretation 736 application may be made to the zoning administrator on a form provided, which shall 737 include at least the following information, unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning 738 administrator: 739 740 a. The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest in 741 the subject property. The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if 742 different than the applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the 743 application; 744 b. The street address, legal description and tax number of the subject property; 745 c. Current and historic photographs; 746 d. Any historic resource surveys and reports on record in the Planning Division or 747 the Utah State Historic Preservation Office; 748 e. Description of any alterations to the structure and the date of approval for any 749 alterations; 750 f. The historic status rating the applicant believes to be correct. When the request is 751 to change the historic status rating, the applicant shall state in the application the 752 reason(s) the existing historic rating is incorrect and why it should be changed 753 based on the considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7, or provide an 754 intensive level historic resource survey conducted in accordance with the Utah 755 State Preservation Office standards for building surveys addressing the 756 20 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT considerations in Subsection 21A.34.020.D.7 for analysis by the zoning 757 administrator. 758 759 g. Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for a full and 760 proper consideration of the particular application. 761 762 7. Considerations for Historic Status Determinations: A historic status determination 763 may include the following considerations: 764 765 a. Whether alterations that have occurred are generally reversible. 766 b. Whether the building contributes to an understanding of a period of significance 767 of a neighborhood, community, or area. 768 c. Whether or not the building retains historic integrity in terms of location, design, 769 setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined in Section 770 21A.62.040. The analysis shall take into consideration how the building reflects 771 the historical or architectural merits of the overall local historic district in which 772 the resource is located. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part of a 773 local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures 774 in a local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of 775 each individual building or structure in a district. 776 8. Decision: Written findings documenting the historic status determination shall be sent 777 to the applicant and members of the historic landmark commission and kept on file in 778 city records. 779 780 9. Updating Records: If the historic status determination is different than the property’s 781 historic rating in the most recent historic resource survey, the determination will 782 stand, and the city’s applicable historic resource survey(s) will be updated to reflect 783 the determination. 784 785 10. Appeal of Decision: Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the 786 zoning administrator interpreting a provision of this title may appeal to the appeals 787 hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21A.16 of this title. 788 789 E. Certificate oOf Appropriateness Required: After the establishment of an H Historic 790 Preservation Overlay District, or the designation of a landmark site, nNo alteration in the 791 exterior appearance of a structure, site, or object or work of art affecting the landmark 792 site or a property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be made or 793 permitted to be made unless or until the an application for a certificate of appropriateness 794 is has been submitted to, and approved by, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 795 administratively by the Pplanning Ddirector, as applicable, pursuant to sSubsection F of 796 this section. Certificates of appropriateness shall be required for: 797 798 21 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required for all of the following: 799 a1. Any exterior alteration to the property or any structure on the property unless 800 specifically exempted under Subsection 21A.34.020.E.2; construction needing a 801 building permit; 802 b2. New construction; Removal and replacement or alteration of architectural 803 detailing, such as porch columns, railing, window moldings, cornices and siding; 804 c3. Relocation of a structure or object on the same site or to another site; 805 d4. Demolition; Construction of additions or decks; 806 5. Alteration or construction of accessory structures, such as garages, etc.; 807 6. Alterations to windows and doors, including replacement or changes in fenestration 808 patterns; 809 7. Construction or alteration of porches; 810 8. Masonry work including, but not limited to, tuckpointing, sandblasting, painting and 811 chemical cleaning; 812 9. The construction or alterations of site features including, but not limited to, fencing, 813 walls, paving and grading; 814 10. Installation or alteration of any exterior sign; 815 11. Any demolition; 816 12. New construction; and 817 13. Installation of an awning over a window or door. 818 2. Exemptions: The following are exempt from obtaining a Certificate of 819 Appropriateness: 820 821 a. Installation of storm windows; 822 b. Landscaping that: 823 824 (1) Complies with the standards of this title; 825 (2) Does not include a wall fence or grade changes; and 826 (3) Is not an attribute that is a character defining feature of the property or 827 streetscape; 828 829 c. Painting of surfaces that does not include unpainted stone, brick or cement; 830 831 d. Plaques, boxes, and other similar objects that measure 18 inches or less in any 832 dimension, contain no electrical components, and are attached to exterior finish 833 material or mounted through mortar joints when on a masonry wall; 834 835 22 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT e. Electrical, gas, or water meters or outlets, including electric vehicle charging 836 outlets, that are in a location that is not visible from the public right of way; 837 838 f. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems that do not require new conduit 839 and are not visible from the public right of way; and 840 841 g. Solar energy collection systems meeting the priority locations outlined in 842 Subsections 21A.40.190.B.3.a through 21A.40.190.B.3.c. 843 844 F. Procedure Ffor Issuance oOf Certificate oOf Appropriateness: 845 846 1. Administrative Authority Decision: The following may be decided by the planning 847 director or designee: Certain types of construction or demolition may be approved 848 administratively subject to the following procedures: 849 a. Types Of Construction: The following may be approved by administrative 850 decision: 851 a. (1)Minor alteration of or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, building, 852 and/or structure; 853 b. (2)Alteration of or addition to a noncontributing site building or structure; 854 c. (3)Partial demolition of either a landmark site or a contributing principal building 855 or structure; 856 d. (4) Demolition of an accessory building or structure; and 857 e. (5) Demolition of a noncontributing building or structure.; and 858 (6) Installation of solar energy collection systems pursuant to 859 section 21A.40.190 of this title. 860 b. Submission Of Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness 861 shall be made on a form prepared by the Planning Director or designee, and shall 862 be submitted to the Planning Division. The Planning Director shall make a 863 determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title., and shall 864 forward the application for review and decision. 865 c. Materials Submitted With Application: The application shall include photographs, 866 construction drawings, and other documentation such as an architectural or 867 massing model, window frame sections, and samples and any further information 868 or documentation as the Zoning Administrator deems necessary in order to fully 869 consider and analyze the application. deemed necessary to consider the 870 application properly and completely. 871 d. Fees: No application fee will be required for a certificate of appropriateness that is 872 administratively approved. 873 e. Notice Of Application For Demolition Of A Noncontributing Building Or 874 Structure: An application for demolition of a noncontributing building or structure 875 23 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT shall require notice for determination of noncontributing sites pursuant to chapter 876 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees 877 established for providing the public notice required by chapter 21A.10 of this title. 878 f. Standards Of Approval: The application shall be reviewed according to the 879 standards set forth in subsections G and H of this section, whichever is applicable. 880 g. Review And Decision By The Planning Director: On the basis of written findings 881 of fact, the Planning Director or the Planning Director’s designee shall either 882 approve, or conditionally approve, the certificate of appropriateness based on the 883 standards in subsections G and H of this section, whichever is applicable, within 884 thirty (30) days following receipt of a completed application. The decision of the 885 Planning Director shall become effective at the time the decision is made. 886 h. Referral Of Application By Planning Director To Historic Landmark 887 Commission: The Planning Director may refer any application to the Historic 888 Landmark Commission due to the complexity of the application, the significance 889 of change to the landmark site or contributing building in the H Historic 890 Preservation Overlay District, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding 891 architectural, construction or preservation issues, or if the application does not 892 meet the standards of review. 893 2. Historic Landmark Commission Authority: The following Certain types of 894 construction, demolition and relocation shall only be decided approved by the 895 Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission subject to the following procedures: 896 897 a. Types Of Construction: The following shall be reviewed by the Historic 898 Landmark Commission: 899 a. (1)Substantial alteration or addition to a landmark site or contributing site, 900 building, and/or structure; 901 902 b. (2) New construction of principal building in the H Historic Preservation Overlay 903 District; 904 905 c. (3) Relocation of landmark site or contributing principal building; 906 907 d. (4) Demolition of landmark site or contributing principal building; 908 909 e. Economic hardship determination; and 910 911 f. (5) Applications for administrative approval referred by the Pplanning Ddirector.; 912 and 913 914 (6) Installation of solar energy collection systems on the front facade of the 915 principal building in a location most compatible with the character defining 916 features of the home pursuant to section 21A.40.190 of this title. 917 24 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 3b. Submission oOf Application: An application for a certificate of appropriateness shall 918 be made on an application form prepared by the zoning administrator and 919 accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee 920 schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all mailing fees 921 established for required public noticing. the Planning Director or designee, and shall 922 be submitted to the Planning Division. The Planning Director shall make a 923 determination of completeness pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title., and shall 924 forward the application for review and decision. The procedure for an application for 925 a certificate of appropriateness shall be the same as specified in subsection F1b of this 926 section. 927 a. General Application Requirements: A complete application shall include the 928 following unless deemed unnecessary by the zoning administrator: 929 930 (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest 931 in the subject property; 932 933 (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the 934 applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; 935 936 (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; 937 938 (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets 939 review standards with citation of supporting adopted city design guidelines; 940 941 (5) Current and historic photographs of the property 942 943 (6) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following 944 information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, 945 alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed 946 buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash 947 receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for 948 project evaluation; 949 950 (7) Elevation drawings and details for all impacted facades; 951 952 (8) Illustrative photos and or samples of all proposed façade materials; 953 954 (9) Building, wall, and window section drawings; 955 956 (10) Any further information or documentation as the zoning administrator deems 957 necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. 958 959 b. New Construction Application Requirements: In addition to the general 960 application requirements listed above, applications for new construction of a 961 25 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT primary structure shall include the following unless deemed unnecessary by the 962 zoning administrator: 963 c. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the 964 Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible 965 for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required 966 by chapter 21A.10 of this title. 967 d. Materials Submitted With Application: An application shall be made on a form 968 provided by the Planning Director and shall be submitted to the Planning Division 969 in accordance with subsection F1c of this section, however specific requirements 970 for new construction shall include the following information unless deemed 971 unnecessary by the Zoning Administrator: 972 (1) The applicant’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and interest 973 in the subject property; 974 (2) The owner’s name, address and telephone number, if different than the 975 applicant, and the owner’s signed consent to the filing of the application; 976 (3) The street address and legal description of the subject property; 977 (4) A narrative including a complete description of the project and how it meets 978 review standards with citation of supporting adopted City design guidelines; 979 (1) (5)A context plan showing property lines, building footprints, front yard 980 setbacks, adjacent streets and alleys, historic district boundaries, 981 contributing/noncontributing structures and landmark sites; 982 983 (2) (6) A streetscape study which includes height measurements for each primary 984 structure on the block face; 985 (7) A site plan or drawing drawn to a scale which includes the following 986 information: property lines, lot dimensions, topography, adjacent streets, 987 alleys and walkways, landscaping and buffers, existing and proposed 988 buildings and structures, lot coverage, grade changes, parking spaces, trash 989 receptacles, drainage features, proposed setbacks and other details required for 990 project evaluation; 991 (8) Elevation drawings and details for all facades; 992 (9) Illustrative photos and/or samples of all proposed facade materials; 993 (10) Building, wall, and window section drawings; 994 (3) (11) Renderings 3D models that show the new construction in relation to 995 neighboring buildings; and 996 (4) (12) Renderings 3D models that show the new construction from the 997 pedestrian perspective.; and 998 (13) Any further information or documentation as the Zoning Administrator 999 deems necessary in order to fully consider and analyze the application. 1000 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4e. Notice: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness are subject to the notification 1001 requirements of Chapter 2.60 of this code. shall require notice pursuant to chapter 1002 21A.10 of this title. An application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition 1003 of a noncontributing building or structure shall require notice pursuant to Chapter 1004 21A.10 of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all fees 1005 established for providing the public notice required by Chapters 2.60 and 21A.10 of 1006 this title. 1007 f. Public Hearing: Applications for a certificate of appropriateness shall require a 1008 public hearing pursuant to chapter 21A.10 of this title. 1009 5g. Standards fFor Approval: The Aapplications for a certificate of appropriateness shall 1010 be reviewed according to the standards set forth in sSubsections G through KL of this 1011 section, whichever are applicable. 1012 6. Administrative Decisions: The planning director or designee shall approve, 1013 conditionally approve, or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness 1014 based upon written findings of fact. The decision of the planning director or designee 1015 shall become effective upon issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. 1016 a. Referral of Application to Historic Landmark Commission: The planning director 1017 or designee may refer any application to the historic landmark commission due to 1018 the complexity of the application, the significance of change to the structure or 1019 site, or the need for consultation for expertise regarding architectural or other 1020 preservation issues. 1021 7h. Review And Decision By The Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: The 1022 Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall hold a public hearing to review the 1023 application in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 1024 21A.10 of this title. make a decision at a regularly scheduled meeting, following 1025 receipt of a completed application. The historic landmark commission shall approve, 1026 conditionally approve, or deny the application based upon written findings of fact. 1027 The decision of the historic landmark commission shall become effective at the time 1028 the decision is made. Following a decision from the historic landmark commission to 1029 approve a certificate of appropriateness, the planning director or designee shall issue 1030 a certificate of appropriateness after all conditions of approval are met except for 1031 demolition of contributing principal buildings and landmark sites as outlined in 1032 Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. 1033 1034 8. Requirements for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition: The certificate of 1035 appropriateness for demolition of a contributing principal building or landmark site 1036 shall not be issued until the following criteria is satisfied: 1037 1038 a. The appeal period associated with the approval has expired. 1039 1040 b. The landmark commission has granted approval for a new building that will 1041 replace the landmark site or contributing principal building to be demolished. The 1042 requirement for replacing the contributing principal building or landmark site with 1043 27 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a new building may be waived by the historic landmark commission if a new 1044 development or redevelopment plan that includes the principal building to be 1045 demolished is approved by the historic landmark commission. 1046 1047 c. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition shall be issued simultaneously 1048 with the certificate of appropriateness and building permits for the replacement 1049 building. 1050 1051 9. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for 1052 demolition, the property shall not be removed from the H Historic Preservation 1053 Overlay District until the building has been demolished and revocation of the 1054 designation of a landmark site has been approved in accordance with Section 1055 21A.51.050, Local Historic Amendments Process. 1056 1057 10. Exceptions of Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of Hazardous Buildings: 1058 A hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the 1059 building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent 1060 hazard to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building 1061 official shall notify the planning director for consultation and of the final decision. 1062 1063 11. Expiration of Approvals: No certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for a period 1064 of longer than one (1) year unless a building permit has been issued or complete 1065 building plans have been submitted to the Salt Lake City Division of Building 1066 Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 1067 completion; or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the historic landmark 1068 commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the planning director or 1069 designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) 1070 days prior to the one (1) year time period. 1071 1072 (1) After reviewing all materials submitted for the case, the recommendation of 1073 the Planning Division and conducting a field inspection, if necessary, the 1074 Historic Landmark Commission shall make written findings of fact based on 1075 the standards of approval as outlined in this subsection F through subsection K 1076 of this section, whichever are applicable. 1077 (2) On the basis of its written findings of fact the Historic Landmark 1078 Commission shall either approve, deny or conditionally approve the certificate 1079 of appropriateness. 1080 (3) The decision of the Historic Landmark Commission shall become effective at 1081 the time the decision is made. Demolition permits for landmark sites or 1082 contributing principal buildings shall not be issued until the appeal period has 1083 expired. 1084 28 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (4) Written notice of the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission on the 1085 application, including a copy of the findings of fact, shall be made pursuant to 1086 the provisions of section 21A.10.030 of this title. 1087 12i. Appeal oOf Historic Landmark Commission Decisions: Any person adversely 1088 affected by a final decision of the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or in the case 1089 of administrative decisions, the planning director or designee, may file an appeal in 1090 accordance with the provisions of cChapter 21A.16 of this title. 1091 G. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Alteration oOf aA Landmark Site oOr 1092 Contributing Structure Including New Construction oOf aAn Accessory Structure: In 1093 considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark 1094 site or contributing structure, or new construction of an accessory structure associated 1095 with a landmark site or contributing structure, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 1096 the Pplanning Ddirector, for administrative decisions, shall, using the adopted design 1097 guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, find that the project substantially complies with 1098 all of the following general standards: that pertain to the application and that the decision 1099 is in the best interest of the City: 1100 1101 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires 1102 minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and 1103 environment; 1104 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of 1105 historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall 1106 be avoided; 1107 3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. 1108 Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of 1109 history or architecture are not allowed; 1110 4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right 1111 shall be retained and preserved; 1112 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of 1113 craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved; 1114 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever 1115 feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the 1116 material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. 1117 Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate 1118 duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather 1119 than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from 1120 other structures or objects; 1121 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic 1122 materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be 1123 undertaken using the gentlest means possible; 1124 8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be 1125 discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, 1126 historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with 1127 29 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or 1128 environment; 1129 9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that 1130 if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form 1131 and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be 1132 differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and 1133 architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its 1134 environment; 1135 10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following: 1136 a. Aluminum, asbestos, or vinyl cladding; and when applied directly to an original 1137 or historic material. 1138 b. Vinyl fencing. 1139 1140 11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a 1141 landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible 1142 from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the 1143 landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the 1144 standards outlined in cChapter 21A.46 of this title. 1145 1146 H. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness Involving New Construction oOr 1147 Alteration oOf aA Noncontributing Structure: In considering an application for a 1148 certificate of appropriateness involving new construction of a principal building, or 1149 alterations of noncontributing structures, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, or 1150 Pplanning Ddirector when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing 1151 structure, shall, using the adopted design guidelines as a key basis for evaluation, 1152 determine whether the project substantially complies with each of the following standards 1153 that pertain to the application to ensure that the proposed project fits into the established 1154 context in ways that respect and contribute to the evolution of Salt Lake City’s 1155 architectural and cultural traditions: 1156 1157 1. Settlement Patterns aAnd Neighborhood Character: 1158 1159 a. Block aAnd Street Patterns: The design of the project preserves and reflects the 1160 historic block, street, and alley patterns that give the district its unique character. 1161 Changes to the block and street pattern may be considered when advocated by an 1162 adopted Ccity plan. 1163 b. Lot aAnd Site Patterns: The design of the project preserves the pattern of lot and 1164 building site sizes that create the urban character of the historic context and the 1165 block face. Changes to the lot and site pattern may be considered when advocated 1166 by an adopted Ccity plan. 1167 c. The Public Realm: The project relates to adjacent streets and engages with 1168 sidewalks in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and the 1169 block face. Projects should maintain the depth of yard and height of principal 1170 30 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT elevation of those existing on the block face in order to support consistency in the 1171 definition of public and semi-public spaces. 1172 d. Building Placement: Buildings are placed such that the project maintains and 1173 reflects the historic pattern of setbacks and building depth established within the 1174 historic context and the block face. Buildings should maintain the setback 1175 demonstrated by existing buildings of that type constructed in the district or site’s 1176 period of significance. 1177 e. Building Orientation: The building is designed such that principal entrances and 1178 pathways are oriented such that they address the street in the pattern established in 1179 the historic context and the block face. 1180 1181 2. Site Access, Parking, aAnd Services: 1182 a. Site Access: The design of the project allows for site access that is similar, in 1183 form and function, with patterns common in the historic context and the block 1184 face. 1185 1186 (1) Pedestrian: Safe pedestrian access is provided through architecturally 1187 highlighted entrances and walkways, consistent with patterns common in the 1188 historic context and the block face. 1189 (2) Vehicular: Vehicular access is located in the least obtrusive manner possible. 1190 Where possible, garage doors and parking should be located to the rear or to 1191 the side of the building. 1192 1193 b. Site aAnd Building Services aAnd Utilities: Utilities and site/building services 1194 (such as HVAC systems, venting fans, and dumpsters) are located such that they 1195 are to the rear of the building or on the roof and screened from public spaces and 1196 public properties. 1197 1198 3. Landscape aAnd Lighting: 1199 a. Grading oOf Land: The site’s landscape, such as grading and retaining walls, 1200 addresses the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic 1201 context and the block face. 1202 b. Landscape Structures: Landscape structures, such as arbors, walls, fences, address 1203 the public way in a manner that reflects the character of the historic context and 1204 the block face. 1205 c. Lighting: Where appropriate lighting is used to enhance significant elements of 1206 the design and reflects the character of the historic context and the block face. 1207 1208 4. Building Form aAnd Scale: 1209 a. Character oOf Tthe Street Block: The design of the building reflects the historic 1210 character of the street facade in terms of scale, composition, and modeling. 1211 1212 31 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (1) Height: The height of the project reflects the character of the historic context 1213 and the block face. Projects taller than those existing on the block face step 1214 back their upper floors to present a base that is in scale with the historic 1215 context and the block face. 1216 1217 (2) Width: The width of the project reflects the character of the historic context 1218 and the block face. Projects wider than those existing on the block face 1219 modulate the facade to express a series of volumes in scale with the historic 1220 context and the block face. 1221 1222 (3) Massing: The shape, form, and proportion of buildings, reflects the character 1223 of the historic context and the block face. 1224 1225 (4) Roof Forms: The building incorporates roof shapes that reflect forms found in 1226 the historic context and the block face. 1227 1228 5. Building Character: 1229 a. Facade Articulation aAnd Proportion: The design of the project reflects patterns 1230 of articulation and proportion established in the historic context and the block 1231 face. As appropriate, facade articulations reflect those typical of other buildings 1232 on the block face. These articulations are of similar dimension to those found 1233 elsewhere in the context, but have a depth of not less than twelve inches (12”). 1234 1235 (1) Rhythm oOf Openings: The facades are designed to reflect the rhythm of 1236 openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the historic 1237 context and the block face. 1238 1239 (2) Proportion aAnd Scale oOf Openings: The facades are designed using 1240 openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) of similar proportion and 1241 scale to that established in the historic context and the block face. 1242 1243 (3) Ratio oOf Wall tTo Openings: Facades are designed to reflect the ratio of wall 1244 to openings (doors, windows, recessed balconies, etc.) established in the 1245 historic context and the block face. 1246 1247 (4) Balconies, Porches, aAnd External Stairs: The project, as appropriate, 1248 incorporates entrances, balconies, porches, stairways, and other projections 1249 that reflect patterns established in the historic context and the block face. 1250 1251 6. Building Materials, Elements aAnd Detailing: 1252 a. Materials: Building facades, other than windows and doors, incorporate no less 1253 than eighty percent (80%) durable material such as, but not limited to, wood, 1254 32 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and/or cut stone. These materials 1255 reflect those found elsewhere in the district and/or setting in terms of scale and 1256 character. 1257 b. Materials Oon Street-Facing Facades: The following materials are not considered 1258 to be appropriate and are prohibited for use on facades which face a public street: 1259 vinyl siding and aluminum siding. 1260 c. Windows: Windows and other openings are incorporated in a manner that reflects 1261 patterns, materials, profile, and detailing established in the district and/or setting. 1262 d. Architectural Elements aAnd Details: The design of the building features 1263 architectural elements and details that reflect those characteristic of the district 1264 and/or setting. 1265 1266 7. Signage Location: Locations for signage are provided such that they are an integral 1267 part of the site and architectural design and are complementary to the principal 1268 structure. 1269 1270 I. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Relocation oOf Landmark Site oOr 1271 Contributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness 1272 for relocation of a landmark site or a contributing structure, the Hhistoric Llandmark 1273 Ccommission shall find that the project substantially complies with the following 1274 standards: 1275 1276 1. The proposed relocation will abate demolition of the structure; 1277 1278 2. The proposed relocation will not diminish the overall physical integrity of the district 1279 or diminish the historical associations used to define the boundaries of the district; 1280 1281 3. The proposed relocation will not diminish the historical or architectural significance 1282 of the structure; 1283 1284 4. The proposed relocation will not have a detrimental effect on the structural soundness 1285 of the building or structure; 1286 1287 5. A professional building mover will move the building and protect it while being 1288 stored; and 1289 1290 6. A financial guarantee to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure once the relocation 1291 has occurred is provided to the Ccity. The financial guarantee shall be in a form 1292 approved by the Ccity Aattorney, in an amount determined by the Pplanning 1293 Ddirector sufficient to cover the estimated cost to rehabilitate the structure as 1294 approved by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission and restore the grade and 1295 landscape the property from which the structure was removed in the event the land is 1296 to be left vacant once the relocation of the structure occurs. 1297 1298 33 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT J. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition oOf Landmark Site: In 1299 considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a 1300 landmark site, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall only approve the application 1301 upon finding that the project fully complies with one of the following standards: 1302 1303 1. The demolition is required to alleviate a threat to public health and safety pursuant to 1304 sSubsection 21A.34.020.F.10 O of this section; or 1305 1306 2. A determination of economic hardship has been granted by the Hhistoric Llandmark 1307 Ccommission pursuant to the provisions of sSubsection 21A.34.020.L of this section. 1308 1309 K. Standards fFor Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition oOf aA Contributing 1310 Principal Building In An H Historic Preservation Overlay District: When considering a 1311 request for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of a contributing 1312 principal building, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall determine whether the 1313 request substantially complies with the following standards: 1314 1315 1. Standards For Approval Of A Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition: 1316 1a. The historic integrity of the site as defined in subsection Section 21A.62.040 C15b of 1317 this section is no longer evident and the site no longer meets the definition of a 1318 contributing building or structure in Section 21A.62.040; 1319 2b.The streetscape within the context of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District 1320 would not be negatively materially affected if the contributing principal building were 1321 to be demolished; 1322 3c. The demolition would not create a material adverse effect on the concentration of 1323 historic resources used to define the boundaries or maintain the integrity of the 1324 district; 1325 4d.The base zoning of the site does not permit land uses that would allow the adaptive 1326 reuse of the contributing principal building; 1327 5e. The contributing principal building has not suffered from willful wilful neglect, as 1328 evidenced by the following: 1329 a. (1)WillfulWilful or negligent acts that have caused significant deterioration of the 1330 structural integrity of the contributing principal building to the point that the 1331 building fails to substantially conform to applicable standards of the Sstate 1332 Cconstruction Ccode, 1333 b. (2)Failure to perform routine and appropriate maintenance and repairs to maintain 1334 the structural integrity of the contributing principal building, or 1335 c. (3)Failure to secure and board the contributing principal building, if vacant, per 1336 sSection 18.64.045 of this Ccode. 1337 34 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2. Historic Landmark Commission Determination Of Compliance With Standards Of 1338 Approval: If the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the request for a 1339 certificate of appropriateness for demolition substantially complies with the standards 1340 in subsection K1 of this section, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall 1341 approve the request for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. If the Historic 1342 Landmark Commission does not find that the request for a certificate of 1343 appropriateness for demolition substantially complies with the standards in subsection 1344 K1 of this section, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall deny the request for 1345 a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. 1346 L. Economic Hardship Determination: Upon denial of a certificate of appropriateness for 1347 demolition of a contributing principal building by the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission, 1348 the owner and/or owner’s representative will have one year from the end of the appeal 1349 period as described in cChapter 21A.16 of this title, to submit an application for 1350 determination of economic hardship. In the case of a landmark site, an application for 1351 determination of economic hardship shall can be submitted at any the same time as an 1352 application for demolition of a landmark site necessary to meet the standard of 1353 sSubsection 21A.34.020.J.2 of this section. 1354 1355 1. Application fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: An application for a 1356 determination of economic hardship shall be made on a form provided by the zoning 1357 administrator and accompanied by applicable fees as noted in the Salt Lake City 1358 consolidated fee schedule. Planning Director and shall be submitted to the Planning 1359 Division. 1360 1361 2. Evidence fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: The burden of proof is on the 1362 owner or owner’s representative to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an 1363 economic hardship. Any finding in support of economic hardship shall be based 1364 solely on the hardship of the property. Evidence may include, but is not limited to: 1365 1366 a. Physical cCondition of the property at time of purchase and the applicant’s plans 1367 for the property at time of purchase. 1368 b. The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to 1369 the following: 1370 1371 (1) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom 1372 purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between 1373 applicant, and the person from whom the property was purchased,; 1374 (2) The annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous 1375 three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous 1376 three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and 1377 after debt service, if any, for the previous three (3) years,; 1378 1379 35 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (3) Real Eestate Ttaxes for the previous three (3) years by the Salt Lake County 1380 Assessor,; 1381 (4) An appraisal, no older than six (6) months at the time of application for 1382 determination of economic hardship conducted by an MAI certified appraiser 1383 licensed within the State of Utah. Also all appraisals obtained within the 1384 previous three (3) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the 1385 purchase, financing or ownership of the property,; 1386 (5) The fair market value of the property taking into consideration the H Historic 1387 Preservation Overlay District,; and 1388 (6) For non-residential or multifamily properties, any Sstate or Ffederal Iincome 1389 Ttax returns on or relating to the property for the previous three (3) years. 1390 1391 c. The marketability of the property for sale or lease, as determined by any listing of 1392 the property for sale or lease, and price asked and offers received, if any, within 1393 the previous two (2) years. This determination can include testimony and relevant 1394 documents regarding: 1395 1396 (1) Any real estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property,; 1397 (2) Reasonableness of the price in terms of fair market value or rent sought by the 1398 applicant,; and 1399 (3) Any advertisements placed for the sale or rental of the property. 1400 1401 d. The feasibility of alternative uses for the property as considered in relation to the 1402 following: 1403 1404 (1) Report from a licensed engineer or architect with demonstrated experience in 1405 rehabilitation of older buildings as to the structural soundness of any building 1406 on the property,; 1407 (2) An estimate of the cost of the proposed construction or alteration, including 1408 the cost of demolition and removal, and potential cost savings for reuse of 1409 materials,; 1410 (3) The estimated market values of the property in current condition, after 1411 completion of the demolition; and after renovation of the existing property for 1412 continued use,; and 1413 (4) The testimony of an experienced professional with demonstrated experience 1414 in rehabilitation of older buildings as to the economic feasibility of 1415 rehabilitation or reuse of the existing building on the property. An experienced 1416 professional may include, but is not limited to, an architect, developer, real 1417 estate consultant, appraiser, or any other professional experienced in 1418 preservation or rehabilitation of older buildings and licensed within the State 1419 of Utah. 1420 1421 36 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT e. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through Ffederal, 1422 Sstate, Ccity, or private programs. 1423 f. Description of past and current use. 1424 g. An itemized report that identifies what is deficient if the building does not meet 1425 minimum Ccity Bbuilding Ccode standards or violations of this Ccode and 1426 whether any exceptions within Chapter 12 Historic Buildings of the IEBC, or its 1427 successor, could be used to resolve those deficiencies. 1428 h. Consideration of map amendment, conditional use, special exception or other land 1429 use processes to alleviate hardship. 1430 1431 3. Procedure fFor Determination oOf Economic Hardship: The Planning Director shall 1432 appoint a qualified expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or 1433 testimony to the Historic Landmark Commission concerning the value of the property 1434 and whether or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. The 1435 extent of the authority of the Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert is limited 1436 to rendering advice and testimony to the Historic Landmark Commission. The 1437 Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert has no decision-making capacity. The 1438 Planning Director’s appointed qualified expert should have considerable and 1439 demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic properties, 1440 real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or law. The Historic 1441 Landmark Commission may also consider other expert testimony upon reviewing the 1442 evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the advice/testimony of the Planning 1443 Director’s appointed qualified expert as necessary. 1444 1445 a. Appointment of Qualified Expert: The planning director shall appoint a qualified 1446 expert to evaluate the application and provide advice and/or testimony to the 1447 historic landmark commission concerning the value of the property and whether 1448 or not the denial of demolition could result in an economic hardship. 1449 1450 (1) The extent of the Authority: The planning director’s appointed qualified 1451 expert is limited to rendering advice and testimony to the historic landmark 1452 commission and has no decision-making capacity. 1453 (2) The planning director’s appointed qualified expert shall have considerable and 1454 demonstrated experience in appraising, renovating, or restoring historic 1455 properties, real estate development, economics, accounting, finance and/or 1456 law. 1457 (3) The historic landmark commission may also consider other expert testimony 1458 upon reviewing the evidence presented by the applicant or receiving the 1459 advice/testimony of the planning director’s appointed qualified expert as 1460 necessary. 1461 1462 ba. Review Oof Evidence: The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall hold a public 1463 hearing in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 1464 37 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 21A.10 of this title shall to consider the evidence submitted, an application and 1465 the advice and /testimony of the Pplanning Ddirector’s appointed qualified expert. 1466 for determination of economic hardship after receipt of a complete application. 1467 1468 cb. Finding Oof Economic Hardship: If after reviewing all of the evidence presented by 1469 the applicant and the advice/testimony of the Pplanning Ddirector’s appointed 1470 qualified expert, and if the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission finds that the applicant 1471 has presented sufficient information supporting a determination of economic 1472 hardship, then the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission shall approve the issue a 1473 certificate of appropriateness for demolition. in accordance with subsections M and N 1474 of this section. In order to show that all beneficial or economically viable use cannot 1475 be obtained, the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission must find that all of the following 1476 are met: 1477 1478 (1) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be economically 1479 used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present condition or if 1480 rehabilitated; 1481 (2) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any 1482 reasonable beneficial use in its present condition or if rehabilitated; and 1483 (3) Bona fide efforts during the previous year to sell or lease the contributing 1484 principal building or landmark site at a reasonable price have been 1485 unsuccessful. 1486 1487 (1) For demolition of non-residential or multifamily property: 1488 1489 (A) The contributing principal building or landmark site currently cannot be 1490 economically used or rented at a reasonable rate of return in its present 1491 condition. 1492 1493 (2) For demolition of a residential property (single or two family): 1494 1495 (A) The contributing principal building or landmark site cannot be put to any 1496 beneficial use in its present condition. 1497 dc. Certificate oOf Appropriateness fFor Demolition: If the Hhistoric Llandmark 1498 Ccommission finds an economic hardship, a certificate of appropriateness for 1499 demolition shall be issued in accordance with Subsection 21A.34.020.F.8. valid 1500 for one year. Extensions of time for an approved certificate of appropriateness for 1501 demolition associated with economic hardship shall be subject to 1502 subsection 21A.10.010D of this title. 1503 ed. Denial Oof Economic Hardship: If the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission does 1504 not find an economic hardship, then the application for a certificate of 1505 appropriateness for demolition shall be denied. No further economic hardship 1506 determination applications may be considered for the subject property for three 1507 (3) years from the date of the final decision of the Hhistoric Llandmark 1508 Ccommission. The Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission may waive this restriction 1509 38 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT if the Hhistoric Llandmark Ccommission finds there are circumstances sufficient 1510 to warrant a new hearing other than the re-sale of the property or those caused by 1511 the negligence or intentional acts of the owner. 1512 1513 e. Appeal: Any owner adversely affected by a final decision of the Historic 1514 Landmark Commission may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions 1515 of chapter 21A.16 of this title. 1516 M. Requirements For Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition: No certificate of 1517 appropriateness for demolition shall be issued unless the landmark site or contributing 1518 principal building to be demolished is to be replaced with a new building that meets the 1519 following criteria. 1520 1521 1. The replacement building satisfies all applicable zoning and H Historic Preservation 1522 Overlay District standards for new construction. 1523 2. The certificate of appropriateness for demolition is issued simultaneously with the 1524 appropriate approvals and permits for the replacement building. 1525 3. Submittal of documentation to the Planning Division of the landmark site or 1526 contributing principal building in a historic district. Documentation shall include 1527 photos of the subject property and a site plan. Documentation may also include 1528 drawings and/or written data if available. 1529 1530 a. Photographs. Digital or print photographs. Views should include: 1531 (1) Exterior views; 1532 (2) Close-ups of significant exterior features; 1533 (3) Views that show the relationship of the primary building to the overall site, 1534 accessory structures and/or site features. 1535 1536 b. Site plan showing the location of the building and site features. 1537 1538 N. Revocation Of The Designation Of A Landmark Site: If a landmark site is approved for 1539 demolition, the property shall not be removed from the Salt Lake City Register of 1540 Cultural Resources (see subsection D of this section). 1541 1542 O. Exceptions Of Certificate Of Appropriateness For Demolition Of Hazardous Buildings: A 1543 hazardous building shall be exempt from the provisions governing demolition if the 1544 building official determines, in writing, that the building currently is an imminent hazard 1545 to public safety. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the building official shall 1546 notify the Planning Director of the decision. 1547 1548 P. Expiration Of Approvals: Subject to an extension of time granted by the Historic 1549 Landmark Commission, or in the case of an administratively approved certificate of 1550 appropriateness, by the Planning Director or designee, no certificate of appropriateness 1551 shall be valid for a period of longer than one year unless a building permit has been 1552 39 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT issued or complete building plans have been submitted to the Division of Building 1553 Services and Licensing within that period and is thereafter diligently pursued to 1554 completion, or unless a longer time is requested and granted by the Historic Landmark 1555 Commission, or in the case of an administrative approval, by the Planning Director or 1556 designee. Any request for a time extension shall be required not less than thirty (30) days 1557 prior to the twelve (12) month time period. 1558 1559 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.190.B. That 1560 Subsection 21A.40.190.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Accessory Uses, Buildings and 1561 Structures: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems: Small Solar Energy Collection Systems and 1562 Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or Landmark Sites) shall be, and hereby is amended to 1563 read as follows: 1564 B. Small Solar Energy Collection Systems aAnd Historic Preservation Overlay Districts Or 1565 Landmark Sites: 1566 1567 1. General: In addition to meeting the standards set forth in this section, all applications to 1568 install a small solar energy collection system within the Historic Preservation Overlay 1569 District shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with Section 1570 21A.34.020 prior to installation. Small solar energy collection systems shall be allowed 1571 in accordance with the location priorities detailed in sSubsection B.3 of this section. If 1572 there is any conflict between the provisions of this sSubsection B, and any other 1573 requirements of this section, the provisions of this sSubsection B shall take precedence. 1574 2. Installation Standards: The small solar energy collection system shall be installed in a 1575 location and manner on the building or lot that is least visible and obtrusive and in such a 1576 way that causes the least impact to the historic integrity and character of the historic 1577 building, structure, site or district while maintaining efficient operation of the solar 1578 device. The system must be installed in such a manner that it can be removed and not 1579 damage the historic building, structure, or site it is associated with. 1580 3. Small Solar Energy Collection System Location Priorities: In approving appropriate 1581 locations and manner of installation, consideration shall include the following locations 1582 in the priority order they are set forth below. The method of installation approved shall be 1583 the least visible from a public right-of-way, not including alleys, and most compatible 1584 with the character defining features of the historic building, structure, or site. Systems 1585 proposed for locations in subsections B3a through B3e of this section, may be reviewed 1586 administratively as set forth in subsection 21A.34.020F1, “Administrative Decision”, of 1587 this title. Systems proposed for locations in subsection B3f of this section, shall be 1588 reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission in accordance with the procedures set 1589 forth in subsection 21A.34.020F2, “Historic Landmark Commission”, of this title. 1590 40 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1591 a. Rear yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. 1592 b. On accessory buildings or structures in a location not readily visible from a public 1593 right-of-way. 1594 c. In a side yard in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-way. 1595 d. On the principal building in a location not readily visible from a public right-of-1596 way. 1597 e. On the principal building in a location that may be visible from a public right-of-1598 way, but not on the structure’s front facade. 1599 f. On the front facade of the principal building in a location most compatible with 1600 the character defining features of the structure. 1601 1602 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.020. That 1603 Section 21A.50.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Authority) shall be, and 1604 hereby is amended to read as follows: 1605 21A.50.020: AUTHORITY: 1606 1607 The text of this title and the zoning map may be amended by the passage of an ordinance 1608 adopted by the city council in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. 1609 Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Sites are 1610 subject to the procedures in Chapter 21A.51, Local Historic Designations and Amendments. 1611 1612 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.030. That 1613 Section 21A.50.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Initiation) shall be, and 1614 hereby is amended to read as follows: 1615 21A.50.030: INITIATION: 1616 1617 Amendments to the text of this title or to the zoning map may be initiated by filing an 1618 application for an amendment addressed to the planning commission. Applications for 1619 amendments may be initiated by the mayor, the city council, the planning commission, or the 1620 owner of the property included in the application, or the property owner’s authorized agent. 1621 Applications related to H Historic Preservation Overlay Districts or landmark sites or the 1622 Homeless Resource Center Overlay shall be initiated as provided in Chapter 21A.34 of this 1623 title. 1624 1625 41 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.50.040.B That 1626 Section 21A.50.030.B of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Procedure: Fees) shall 1627 be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1628 B. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the Salt 1629 Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible for payment 1630 of all fees established for providing the public notice required by cChapter 21A.10 of this 1631 title. Application and noticing fees filed by the city council, planning commission or the 1632 mayor shall not be required. Application and noticing fees filed for designation within an 1633 H historic preservation overlay district or to establish a character conservation district 1634 shall not be required. 1635 1636 1637 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.50.060 That 1638 Section 21A.50.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Amendments: Limitation on 1639 Amendments) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1640 21A.50.060: LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS: 1641 1642 A. No application for an amendment to this title shall be considered by the Ccity Ccouncil 1643 or the Pplanning Ccommission within one year of the withdrawal by the applicant or final 1644 decision of the Ccity Ccouncil upon a prior application covering substantially the same 1645 subject or substantially the same property. 1646 B. In the case of a proposed local historic district or thematic designation per section 1647 21A.50.060 of this chapter, if a local historic district or area proposal fails in accordance 1648 with the voting procedures set forth in section 21A.50.060.A11, a resident may not 1649 initiate the creation of a local historic district, area, or thematic designation that includes 1650 more than fifty percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district, 1651 area, or thematic designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the 1652 property owner opinion ballots for the vote were due. 1653 BC. This determination shall be made by the Zzoning Aadministrator upon receipt of an 1654 application pursuant to sSection 21A.50.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not 1655 restrict the Mmayor, the Ccity Ccouncil or the Pplanning Ccommission from proposing 1656 any text amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the districts in this title at any 1657 time. 1658 1659 42 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SECTION 10. Adopting a new Chapter 21A.51 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of 1660 the Salt Lake City Code (Local Historic Designation and Amendments) shall be and hereby is 1661 amended to include a new Chapter 21A.51 Local Historic Designation and Amendments and shall 1662 read as follows: 1663 Chapter 21A.51 1664 LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATON & AMENDMENTS 1665 21A.51.010: Purpose Statement 1666 21A.51.020: Authority 1667 21A.51.030: Local Historic Designation Process 1668 21A.51.040: Local Historic Designation Criteria 1669 21A.51.050: Existing Local Historic Amendment Process 1670 21A.51.060: Existing Local Historic Amendment Criteria 1671 21A.51.070: Limitations 1672 21A.51.080: Historic Resource Surveys 1673 21A.51.090: Appeal of Decision 1674 1675 21A.51.010: PURPOSE STATEMENT: 1676 The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards and procedures for making amendments 1677 to the zoning map related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The H Historic 1678 Preservation Overlay District applies to all properties within the boundaries of a local historic 1679 district, part of a thematic designation, or a landmark site. 1680 21A.51.020: AUTHORITY: 1681 A. Authority: Pursuant to the procedures and standards in this chapter and the standards for 1682 general amendments in Section 21A.50.050, the city council may amend the zoning map 1683 and apply the H Historic Preservation Overlay District by the passage of an ordinance 1684 and: 1685 1686 1. Designate a landmark site; 1687 2. Designate as a local historic district; 1688 3. Designate as a thematic designation; 1689 4. Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from a landmark site, 1690 local historic district or thematic designation; 1691 5. Revoke designation of a landmark site; 1692 6. Adopt comprehensive historic resource surveys and associated reports for new 1693 landmark sites, local historic districts or thematic designations; and 1694 1695 43 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 7. Adopt updates to historic resource surveys and associated reports for existing local 1696 historic districts or thematic designations in accordance with the provisions in Section 1697 21A.51.080. 1698 1699 21A.51.030: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS: 1700 Salt Lake City will consider the local designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 1701 thematic designation in order to protect the best examples of historic resources which 1702 represent significant elements of the city’s prehistory, history, development patterns or 1703 architecture. Local designation must be in the best interest of the city and achieve a 1704 reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the 1705 city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. 1706 A. Process for Designation of a Local Historic District or Thematic Designation: 1707 1708 1. Procedures Required Before an Application Can be Submitted: Prior to the submittal 1709 of an application for the designation or amendment local historic district or thematic 1710 designation, and prior to gathering any signatures for an application, the following 1711 steps must be completed: 1712 1713 a. Pre-application Conference: A potential applicant shall attend a pre-application 1714 conference with the planning director or designee. The purpose of this meeting is 1715 to discuss the merits of the proposed designation and the amendment processes as 1716 outlined in this section. 1717 1718 b. Notification to Affected Property Owners: Following the preapplication 1719 conference outlined in Subsection A.1.a of this section, the city shall send by first 1720 class mail a neutral informational pamphlet to owners of record for each property 1721 potentially affected by a forthcoming application. The informational pamphlet 1722 shall be mailed after a potential applicant submits to the city a finalized proposed 1723 boundary of an area to be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay 1724 District. The informational pamphlet shall contain, at a minimum, a description of 1725 the process to create a local historic district or thematic designation and will also 1726 list the pros and cons of a local historic district or thematic designation. Once the 1727 city sends the informational pamphlet, gathering of property owner signatures 1728 may begin per Subsection A.2 of this section. The informational pamphlet sent 1729 shall remain valid for ninety (90) days. If an application is not filed with the city 1730 within ninety (90) days after the date that the informational pamphlet was mailed, 1731 the city shall close its file on the matter. Any subsequent proposal must begin the 1732 application process again. 1733 1734 2. Application: 1735 1736 44 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: The mayor or the city council, by a 1737 majority vote, may initiate a petition to consider designation of a local historic 1738 district or thematic designation. A property owner submitting such application 1739 shall demonstrate, in writing, support of more than thirty three percent (33%) of 1740 the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area to 1741 be included in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 1742 1743 (1) For purposes of this subsection, a lot or parcel of real property may not be 1744 included in the calculation of the required percentage unless the application is 1745 signed by property owners representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the 1746 interest in that lot or parcel. 1747 1748 (2) Each lot or parcel of real property may only be counted once toward the thirty 1749 three percent (33%), regardless of the number of owner signatures obtained 1750 for that lot or parcel. 1751 1752 (3) Signatures obtained to demonstrate support of more than thirty three percent 1753 (33%) of the property owners within the boundary of the proposed local 1754 historic district or thematic designation must be gathered within a period of 1755 ninety (90) days as counted between the date that the informational pamphlet 1756 was mailed as required per Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b and the date of the 1757 last required signature. 1758 1759 b. Submittal Requirements: An application shall be made to the zoning administrator 1760 on a form or forms provided by the office of the zoning administrator, which shall 1761 include at least the following information unless deemed unnecessary by the 1762 zoning administrator: 1763 1764 (1) Information demonstrating the procedures in Subsections 21A.51.030.A.1.a 1765 and 21A.51.030.A.1.b have been followed; 1766 1767 (2) Information demonstrating the requirements in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.a 1768 have been met; 1769 1770 (3) Street addresses and parcel numbers of all properties included in the proposed 1771 local designation; 1772 1773 (4) Photos of all properties included in the proposed designation; 1774 1775 (5) Narrative demonstrating compliance with the standards and considerations in 1776 Section 21A.51.040; and 1777 1778 45 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT (6) Any other information the zoning administrator deems necessary for 1779 consideration of a particular application. 1780 1781 c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a local historic district or 1782 thematic designation shall not be required. 1783 1784 3. Notice of Designation Application Letter: Following the receipt by the city of an 1785 application for the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation, the 1786 city shall send a notice of designation application letter to owner(s) of record for each 1787 property affected by said application along with a second copy of the informational 1788 pamphlet described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.1.b. In the event that no application 1789 is received following the ninety (90) day period of property owner signature 1790 gathering, the city will send a letter to property owner(s) of record stating that no 1791 application has been filed, and that the city has closed its file on the matter. 1792 1793 4. Planning Director Report to the City Council: Following the receipt by the city of an 1794 application for the designation to a local historic district or thematic designation and 1795 following mailing of the notice of designation application letter described in 1796 Subsection 21A.51.030.A.3, the planning director shall submit a report based on the 1797 following considerations to the city council: 1798 1799 a. Whether a current historic survey meeting the standards prescribed by the State 1800 Historic Preservation Office is available for the landmark site or the area proposed 1801 for a local historic district or thematic designation. If a suitable survey is not 1802 available, the report shall propose a strategy to gather the needed survey data. 1803 1804 b. The city administration will determine the priority of the petition and determine 1805 whether there is sufficient funding and staff resources available to allow the 1806 planning division to complete a community outreach process, historic resource 1807 analysis and to provide ongoing administration of the new local historic district or 1808 thematic designation if the designation is approved by the city council. If 1809 sufficient funding is not available, the report shall include a proposed budget. 1810 1811 c. Whether the proposed designation is generally consistent with the purposes, goals, 1812 objectives and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning 1813 documents. 1814 1815 d. Whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. 1816 1817 e. Whether there is probable cause to believe that the proposed landmark site, local 1818 historic district or thematic designation may be eligible for designation consistent 1819 with the purposes and designation criteria in Section 21A.51.040 and the zoning 1820 map amendment criteria in Section 21A.50.050, “Standards for General 1821 Amendments”, of this title. 1822 46 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1823 f. Verification that a neutral informational pamphlet was sent per Subsection 1824 21A.51.030.A.3 of this section to all property owners within a proposed local 1825 historic district following the preapplication process outlined in Subsections 1826 21A.51.030.A.1.a and 21A.51.030.A.1.b. 1827 1828 5. Notification to Recognized Community Organizations: Notification to recognized 1829 community organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this 1830 code. 1831 1832 6. Property Owner Meeting: Following the submission of the planning director’s report 1833 and acceptance of the report by the city council, the planning division will conduct a 1834 community outreach process to inform the owners of property within the proposed 1835 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation about the 1836 following: 1837 1838 a. The designation process, including determining the level of property owner 1839 support, the public hearing process, and final decision-making process by the city 1840 council; and 1841 1842 b. Zoning ordinance requirements affecting properties located within the H Historic 1843 Preservation Overlay District, adopted design guidelines, the design review 1844 process for alterations and new construction, the demolition process and the 1845 economic hardship process. 1846 1847 7. Open House: The planning division will conduct an open house pursuant to Section 1848 2.60.050. 1849 1850 8. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 1851 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 1852 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 1853 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 1854 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of 1855 some modification of the proposal. 1856 1857 9. Property Owner Opinion Balloting: 1858 1859 a. Following the completion of the historic landmark commission and planning 1860 commission public hearings, the city will deliver property owner opinion ballots 1861 via first class mail to property owners of record within the boundary of the 1862 proposed local historic district or thematic designation. The property owner 1863 opinion ballot is a nonbinding opinion poll to inform the city council of property 1864 owner interest regarding the designation of a local historic district. Each 1865 individual property in the proposed designation boundary, regardless of the 1866 47 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT number of owners having interest in any given property, will receive one property 1867 owner opinion ballot. 1868 1869 (1) A property owner is eligible to vote regardless of whether or not the property 1870 owner is an individual, a private entity, or a public entity; 1871 1872 (2) The city shall count no more than one property owner opinion ballot for: 1873 1874 (a) Each parcel within the boundaries of the proposed local historic district or 1875 area; or 1876 1877 (b) If the parcel contains a condominium project, each unit within the 1878 boundaries of the proposed local historic district or area; and 1879 (c) If a parcel or unit has more than one owner of record, the city shall count 1880 a property owner opinion ballot for the parcel or unit only if the property 1881 owner opinion ballot reflects the vote of the property owners who own at 1882 least fifty percent (50%) interest in the parcel or unit. 1883 b. Property owners of record will have thirty (30) days from the postmark date of the 1884 property owner opinion ballot to submit a response to the city indicating the 1885 property owner’s support or nonsupport of the proposed designation. 1886 1887 c. A letter shall be mailed to all property owners within the proposed local historic 1888 district or thematic designation whose property owner opinion ballot has not been 1889 received by the city within fifteen (15) days from the original postmark date. This 1890 follow up letter will encourage the property owners to submit a property owner 1891 opinion ballot prior to the thirty (30) day deadline date set by the mailing of the 1892 first property owner opinion ballot. 1893 1894 10. Notification of Property Owner Opinion Balloting Results: Following the public 1895 opinion balloting for the proposed designation, the city will send notice of the results 1896 to all property owners within the proposed local historic district or thematic 1897 designation. 1898 1899 11. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the 1900 historic landmark commission and the planning commission and the results of the 1901 property owner opinion ballot process, the city council shall hold a public hearing to 1902 consider the designation of a local historic district or thematic designation in 1903 accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General 1904 Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title and the following: 1905 1906 1907 48 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT a. If the property owner opinion ballots returned equals at least two-thirds (2/3) of the 1908 total number of returned property owner support ballots and represents more than 1909 fifty percent (50%) of the parcels and units (in the case of a condominium) within 1910 the proposed local historic district, area, or thematic designation, the city council 1911 may designate a local historic district or a thematic district by a simple majority 1912 vote. 1913 1914 b. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received does not meet the 1915 threshold identified in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.11.a the city council may only 1916 designate a local historic district, area, or a thematic district by an affirmative vote 1917 of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the city council. 1918 1919 c. If the number of property owner opinion ballots received in support and in 1920 opposition is equal, the city council may only designate a local historic district or 1921 a thematic district by a super majority vote. 1922 1923 B. Process for Designation of a Landmark Site: 1924 1925 1. Application: 1926 1927 a. Parties Entitled to Submit Application: Any owner of property proposed for a 1928 landmark site, the mayor or the city council, by majority vote, may initiate a 1929 petition to consider the designation of a landmark site. 1930 1931 b. Submittal Requirements: Applications for landmark sites shall provide at least all 1932 of the information in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2.b unless deemed unnecessary by 1933 the zoning administrator. 1934 1935 c. Fees: Application and noticing fees for designation of a landmark site shall not be 1936 required. 1937 1938 2. Notification to Community Organizations: Notification to recognized community 1939 organizations shall be provided as set forth in Section 2.60.050 of this code. 1940 1941 3. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 1942 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 1943 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 1944 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 1945 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the proposal or the approval of 1946 some modification of the proposal and the recommendation will be submitted to the 1947 city council. 1948 1949 49 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 4. City Council Consideration: Following the transmittal of the recommendations of the 1950 historic landmark commission and the planning commission, the city council shall 1951 hold a public hearing to consider the designation of a landmark site in accordance 1952 with the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application 1953 and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The city council may, by a majority 1954 vote, designate a landmark site. 1955 1956 C. City Council Decision: Following city council designation of a landmark site, local 1957 historic district or thematic designation, all of the properties located within the 1958 boundaries of the local historic district, landmark site, or thematic designation will be 1959 subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and subject to the provisions of 1960 Section 21A.34.020. The zoning regulations will go into effect on the date of the 1961 publication of the ordinance unless otherwise noted on the adopted ordinance. 1962 1963 1. Designation Adoption: Designation of a landmark site, local historic district or 1964 thematic designation includes adoption of the historic survey and associated report 1965 submitted for the designation. Historic resource surveys may be updated pursuant to 1966 the provisions in Section 21A.51.080 or Subsection 21A.34.020.D. 1967 1968 2. Notice of Designation: Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a 1969 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation, the city shall provide 1970 notice of the action to all owners of property within the boundaries of the H Historic 1971 Preservation Overlay District. In addition, a notice shall be recorded in the office of 1972 the Salt Lake County Recorder for all lots or parcels within the area added to the H 1973 Historic Preservation Overlay District. 1974 1975 21A.51.040: LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA: 1976 A. Standards for the Designation of a Landmark Site, Local Historic District or Thematic 1977 Designation: The proposed landmark site, local historic district, or thematic designation 1978 shall be evaluated according to the following: 1979 1980 1. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or 1981 culture, associated with at least one of the following: 1982 1983 a. Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 1984 history, or 1985 1986 b. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or 1987 1988 c. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance, or method of 1989 construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 1990 1991 50 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT d. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt 1992 Lake City; and 1993 1994 2. Historic integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, 1995 feeling and association as defined in Section 21A.62.040. When analyzing historic 1996 integrity, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a local historic 1997 district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual 1998 building or structure in a district. 1999 2000 3. The proposed landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or 2001 is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 2002 2003 4. The proposed designation contains notable examples of elements of the city’s history, 2004 development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic 2005 districts within Salt Lake City; 2006 2007 5. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and 2008 2009 6. The designation would be in the overall public interest. 2010 2011 B. Factors to Consider: The following factors may be considered by the historic landmark 2012 commission and the city council to help determine whether the proposed designation of a 2013 landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation meets the criteria listed 2014 above: 2015 2016 1. Sites are of an age that allows insight into whether a property is sufficiently important 2017 in the overall history of the community as identified in one or more periods of 2018 significance in a historic survey report. Typically, this is at least fifty (50) years but 2019 could be less if the property has exceptional importance. 2020 2021 2. Whether the proposed local historic district or thematic designation contains 2022 examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns and/or architecture 2023 that may not already be protected by other local historic districts within the city. 2024 2025 3. Whether designation of the proposed local historic district or thematic designation 2026 would add important knowledge that advances the understanding of the city’s history, 2027 development patterns and/or architecture. 2028 2029 4. Whether approximately seventy five percent (75%) of the structures within the 2030 proposed boundaries are rated as contributing structures by the most recent applicable 2031 historic survey and those relate to identified significance and periods of significance. 2032 2033 51 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT C. Boundaries of a Proposed Landmark Site: When applying the evaluation criteria in 2034 Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries of a landmark site shall be drawn to ensure that 2035 historical associations, that best enhance the integrity of the site comprise the boundaries. 2036 2037 D. Boundaries of a Proposed Local Historic District: When applying the evaluation criteria 2038 in Subsection 21A.51.040.A, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the local historic 2039 district: 2040 2041 1. Contains a significant density of documented sites, buildings, structures or features 2042 rated as contributing structures in a recent historic survey; 2043 2044 2. Coincides with documented historic boundaries such as early roadways, canals, 2045 subdivision plats or property lines; 2046 2047 3. Coincides with logical physical or manmade features and reflect recognized 2048 neighborhood boundaries; and 2049 2050 4. Contains noncontributing resources or vacant land only where necessary to create 2051 appropriate boundaries to meet the criteria in Subsections 21A.51.040.A and 2052 21A.51.040.D. 2053 2054 E. Boundaries of a Proposed Thematic Designation: When applying the evaluation criteria 2055 of this section, the boundaries shall be drawn to ensure the thematic designation contains 2056 a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features that are associated by historical, 2057 architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic preservation goals 2058 of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. 2059 2060 21A.51.050: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT PROCESS: 2061 A. Applicability: Existing Local Historic Amendments applies to the following: 2062 2063 1. Expanding the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or adding 2064 additional properties to an existing thematic designation; 2065 2. Reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local historic district, or 2066 removing properties from an existing thematic designation; and 2067 3. Revocation of the designation of a landmark site. 2068 2069 B. Process for Amendments to Existing Local Historic Districts and Thematic Designations: 2070 2071 1. Boundary Expansion: The process for expanding the boundaries of an existing local 2072 historic district or adding properties to a thematic designation shall be the same as 2073 outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that the following shall only apply to the 2074 properties being added into the proposed expanded boundary and do not apply to 2075 52 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT those properties already designated in a local historic district or thematic designation 2076 and already subject to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District: 2077 2078 a. The notification to affected property owners described in Subsection 2079 21A.51.030.A.1.b; 2080 2081 b. The application submittal requirements for demonstrating support of 33% of the 2082 property owners described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.2; 2083 2084 c. The property owner meeting described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.6; 2085 2086 d. The opinion ballot described in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9; 2087 2088 e. Notification of property owner opinion balloting results in Subsection 2089 21A.51.030.A.10; and 2090 2091 f. City council consideration opinion ballot thresholds described in Subsection 2092 21A.51.030.A.11. 2093 2. Boundary Reduction: The process for reducing the boundaries of an existing local 2094 historic district or removing properties from a thematic designation shall be the same 2095 as outlined in Subsection 21A.51.030.A except that: 2096 2097 a. The requirements described in Subsection 21A.51.050.B.1.a through f, shall only 2098 apply to those properties proposed to be removed from the local historic district or 2099 thematic designation and do not apply to those properties already designated in a 2100 local historic district or thematic designation and already subject to the H Historic 2101 Preservation Overlay District. 2102 2103 b. Fees: The application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees shown on the 2104 Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The applicant shall also be responsible 2105 for payment of all fees established for providing the public notice required by 2106 Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications filed by the city council, planning 2107 commission or the mayor shall not be required. 2108 2109 C. Amendments to Existing Landmark Sites: 2110 2111 1. Boundary Expansion or Reduction or Revocation: The process for expanding or 2112 reducing the boundaries of an existing landmark site or the revocation of the 2113 designation of a landmark site shall follow the steps outlined in Subsection 2114 21A.51.030.B in addition to: 2115 2116 a. Fees: Applications for reducing the boundaries of a landmark site or for the 2117 revocation of the designation of a landmark site shall be accompanied by the 2118 applicable fees shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. The 2119 53 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT applicant shall also be responsible for payment of all fees established for 2120 providing the public notice required by Chapter 21A.10 of this title. Applications 2121 filed by the city council, planning commission or the mayor shall not be required. 2122 2123 21A.51.060: EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC AMENDMENT CRITERIA: 2124 2125 A. Expansion: A proposed expansion of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local 2126 historic district, or the addition of properties to a thematic designation shall be considered 2127 utilizing the provisions of Subsections 21A.51.040.A through E and provided that new 2128 information indicates that the inclusion of additional properties would better convey the 2129 historical and architectural integrity of the landmark site, local historic district or 2130 thematic designation. 2131 2132 B. Reduction: A proposed reduction of the boundaries of an existing landmark site, local 2133 historic district or the removal of properties from a thematic designation shall 2134 demonstrate the properties have no longer met the criteria in Subsection 21A.51.040.A 2135 for inclusion within the landmark site, local historic district or thematic designation. The 2136 qualities that caused them to be originally included have been lost or destroyed, or such 2137 qualities were lost subsequent to the historic landmark commission recommendation and 2138 adoption of the designation. 2139 2140 C. Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site: A proposal for revocation of a 2141 landmark site shall demonstrate the property no longer meets the criteria in Subsection 2142 21A.51.040.A for which it was originally designated. 2143 2144 21A.51.070: LIMITATIONS: 2145 2146 A. If a local historic district or thematic designation proposal fails in accordance with the 2147 voting procedures set forth in Subsection 21A.51.030.A.9, a resident may not initiate the 2148 creation of a local historic district or thematic designation that includes more than fifty 2149 percent (50%) of the same property as the failed local historic district or thematic 2150 designation proposal for four (4) years after the day on which the property owner opinion 2151 ballots for the vote were due. 2152 1. This determination shall be made by the zoning administrator upon receipt of an 2153 application pursuant to Section 21A.51.030 of this chapter. This provision shall not 2154 restrict the mayor or the city council from initiating a petition at any time for a new 2155 local historic district or thematic designation, or to amend the boundaries of a local 2156 historic district or the removal or addition of properties in a thematic designation. 2157 2158 21A.51.080: HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEYS 2159 2160 54 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT A. Existing Historic Resource Surveys: Any historic resource survey that was conducted for 2161 the city prior to the amendment of this chapter shall be utilized by the planning director 2162 and the historic landmark commission in applying provisions of Section 21A.34.020 the 2163 H Historic Preservation Overlay District. Any subsequent adoption of a historic resource 2164 survey will be done by ordinance in accordance with the provisions in this chapter and 2165 will supersede previous surveys. 2166 2167 B. Updates to Historic Resource Surveys: 2168 2169 1. Applicability: The city aims to update historic resource surveys on a periodic basis as 2170 recommended by the National Park Service. Updates to surveys are for land use 2171 purposes to determine periods of significance, to determine historic status of 2172 individual properties, to update the national register, and to keep archival records on 2173 historic properties. Updates to a historic resource survey for existing local historic 2174 district is subject to the following: 2175 2176 a. The standards of the H Historic Preservation Overlay apply to those properties 2177 within an adopted local historic district. Any other properties evaluated in a 2178 historic resource survey outside the boundary of a designated local district or 2179 thematic designation will not be subject to the land use regulations associated 2180 with historic status designations in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2181 2182 b. An updated historic resource survey maintains the boundaries of a local historic or 2183 the properties within a thematic designation but may update the historic status of 2184 properties within the adopted H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2185 2186 c. Historic Status Determinations: Instances where the historic status of an 2187 individual property within a local historic district is in question, the zoning 2188 administrator will use the provisions of Subsection 21A.34.020.D to make a 2189 timely determination. 2190 2191 d. Any properties changing status from the most recent historic resource survey shall 2192 be specifically identified in the updated survey and their period of significance 2193 and historic status listed. 2194 2195 2. Process for Updating Historic Resource Surveys: 2196 2197 a. Public Hearings: A public hearing shall be held with both the historic landmark 2198 commission and the planning commission in accordance with the standards and 2199 procedures set forth in Chapter 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing 2200 Procedures”, of this title. The historic landmark commission and planning 2201 commission shall recommend approval or denial of the updated historic resource 2202 55 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT survey or the approval of some modification of the updated historic resource 2203 survey and the recommendation will be submitted to the city council. 2204 2205 b. City Council: Following the transmittal of the historic landmark commission’s 2206 recommendation, the city council shall hold a public hearing to consider adopting 2207 the updated historic survey in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2208 21A.10, “General Application and Public Hearing Procedures”, of this title. The 2209 city council may, by a majority vote, adopt the updated historic resource survey. 2210 In deciding to adopt an updated historic resource survey, the city council may 2211 consider the following in their decision making: 2212 2213 (1) Any benefit or impact that extending the period of significance would have on 2214 the local district or thematic designation and the city; 2215 2216 (2) Any new period of significance in the updated survey is identified and 2217 associated with at least one of the following: 2218 2219 (a) Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of 2220 history, or 2221 (b) Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or 2222 nation, or 2223 (c) The distinctive characteristics of a type, period of significance or method 2224 of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 2225 (d) Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of 2226 Salt Lake City; and 2227 (3) Any properties within a new period of significance will be assessed for 2228 aspects of integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, 2229 workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service 2230 Aspects of integrity. When analyzing integrity, the collective historic value of 2231 the buildings and structures in a local historic district taken together may be 2232 greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure in a 2233 district. If integrity is intact, the property is denoted as contributing in the 2234 updated survey; 2235 2236 (4) Any notable examples of elements of the city’s history, development patterns 2237 or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt 2238 Lake City are specifically identified for any new periods of significance in the 2239 updated survey; 2240 2241 (5) The historic survey update would be in the overall public interest. 2242 56 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2243 C. City Council Action: If an updated historic resource survey is adopted by the city council, 2244 the updated historic resource survey including any updated historic status designations 2245 shall be used when applying provisions of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in 2246 Section 21A.34.020. The decision to update a historic resource survey will go into effect 2247 on the date of the publication of the related ordinance unless otherwise noted on the 2248 adopted ordinance. 2249 2250 2251 21A.51.090: APPEAL OF DECISION: 2252 2253 Any party adversely affected by the decision of the city council may, within thirty (30) days 2254 after such decision, file a petition for review to the District Court pursuant to the Municipal 2255 Land Use Development and Management Act, Section 10-9a-801, of the Utah Code. 2256 2257 SECTION 11. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 2258 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 2259 hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list 2260 in alphabetical order: 2261 Contributing Structure 2262 Noncontributing Structure 2263 Demolition (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District) 2264 Demolition, Partial (as it applies to properties within the H Historic Preservation Overlay 2265 District) 2266 Historic Design Guidelines 2267 Historic Integrity 2268 Economic Hardship 2269 Historic Resource Survey 2270 Landmark Site 2271 Local Historic District 2272 Period of Significance 2273 Thematic Designation 2274 Willful Neglect 2275 2276 SECTION 12. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That 2277 Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms) shall 2278 57 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT be and hereby is amended to add the following definitions, which shall be inserted in 2279 alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 2280 2281 CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H historic preservation 2282 overlay district that has been determined through the process outlined in Section 2283 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or Subsection 21A.34.020.D, to 2284 generally retain historic integrity. When analyzing historic integrity of a building as part 2285 of a local historic district, the collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a 2286 local historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each 2287 individual building or structure in a district. A contributing structure generally has its 2288 major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have 2289 occurred, they are generally reversible. 2290 2291 DEMOLITION (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H HISTORIC 2292 PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Any act or process which destroys a structure, 2293 object or property within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District or a landmark site. 2294 (See definition of demolition, partial.) 2295 2296 DEMOLITION, PARTIAL (AS IT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE H 2297 HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT): Partial demolition includes any act 2298 which destroys a portion of a structure consisting of not more than twenty five percent (25%) 2299 of the floor area of the structure, and where the portion of the structure to be demolished is 2300 not readily visible from the street. Partial demolition also includes the demolition or removal 2301 of additions or materials not of the historic period on any exterior elevation exceeding twenty 2302 five percent (25%) when the demolition is part of an act of restoring original historic 2303 elements of a structure and/or restoring a structure to its historical mass and size. 2304 2305 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: Denial of a property owner of all reasonable beneficial or 2306 economically viable use of a property without just compensation. 2307 2308 HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES: The historic design guidelines provide guidance in 2309 determining the suitability and architectural compatibility of proposed maintenance, repair, 2310 alteration or new construction while at the same time, allowing for reasonable changes that 2311 meet current needs of properties located within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2312 For architects, designers, contractors and property owners, they provide guidance in planning 2313 and designing future projects. For city staff and the historic landmark commission, they 2314 provide guidance for the interpretation of the zoning ordinance standards. Design guidelines 2315 are officially adopted by city council. 2316 2317 HISTORIC INTEGRITY: The ability of a property to convey its historical associations or 2318 attributes. As defined by the National Park Service, the following aspects or qualities, in 2319 various combinations, define historic integrity: 2320 Location- Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the 2321 place where a historic event occurred. 2322 58 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 2323 Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, 2324 structure, and style of a property. 2325 2326 Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 2327 2328 Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited 2329 during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a 2330 historic property. 2331 2332 Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular 2333 culture or people during any given period in history. 2334 2335 Feeling: Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a 2336 particular period of time. 2337 2338 Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or 2339 person and a historic property. 2340 2341 HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY: A systematic resource for identifying and evaluating the 2342 quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the 2343 guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office. Historic resource 2344 surveys shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the minimum professional 2345 qualifications defined by the U.S. National Park Service in the fields of history, archeology, 2346 architectural history, architecture, or historic architecture. 2347 2348 LANDMARK SITE: Any historic site that has been designated in accordance with 2349 Subsection 21A.51.030.B or any site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. A 2350 landmark site includes an individual building, structure or feature or an integrated group of 2351 buildings, structures or features on a single site. Such sites are of exceptional importance to 2352 the city, state, region or nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural values. A 2353 landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the 2354 historic character of the site. Landmark sites are subject to the regulations of Section 2355 21A.34.020, the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2356 2357 LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: A contiguous geographically definable area with a 2358 minimum district size of one “block face”, as defined in Section 21A.62.040, designated by 2359 the city council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, which contains 2360 buildings, structures, sites, objects, landscape features, archaeological sites and works of art, 2361 or a combination thereof, that contributes to the historic preservation goals of Salt Lake City. 2362 All properties within a local historic district are subject to the regulations of Section 2363 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2364 2365 NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE: A structure or site within the H Historic 2366 Preservation Overlay District that has been determined noncontributing through the 2367 process outlined in Section 21A.51.040, or an adopted historic resource survey, or 2368 59 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Subsection 21A.34.020.D, and does not retain historic integrity. The major character 2369 defining features have been so altered as to make the historic form, materials or details 2370 indistinguishable and such alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may 2371 also include those rated out of period, and therefore, they are not representative of a 2372 period of significance as identified in an adopted historic resource survey. 2373 PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: The period of significance is the period when the historic 2374 events associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site 2375 occurred. This period must reflect the dates associated with the property or site, or in the case 2376 of a district, the collection of properties within the district. A period of significance may be 2377 thousands of years (in the case of an archeological property), several years, or even a few 2378 days, depending on the duration of the event. There may be multiple periods of significance 2379 associated with a local historic district, thematic designation, or landmark site. 2380 THEMATIC DESIGNATION: A collection of individual sites, buildings, structures, or 2381 features designated by City Council pursuant to the provisions in Subsection 21A.51.030.A, 2382 which are contained in two (2) or more geographically separate areas that are united together 2383 by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics and contribute to the historic 2384 preservation goals of Salt Lake City by protecting historical, architectural, or aesthetic 2385 interest or value. All properties within a thematic designation are subject to the regulations of 2386 Section 21A.34.020 the H Historic Preservation Overlay District. 2387 2388 WILLFUL NEGLECT: The intentional absence of routine maintenance and repair of a 2389 building over time. 2390 2391 SECTION 13. Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule. That the section of the Salt 2392 Lake City consolidated fee schedule titled, “Zoning Fees” shall be and hereby is amended to read 2393 as follows: 2394 ZONING FEES For question regarding Zoning fees contact: 801.535.7700 Service Fee Additional Information Section Determination of Nonconforming Use $214 21A.38.025.4 Administrative Interpretation $71 Plus $61 per hour for research after the first hour 21A.12.040.A.6 Alley Vacation/Closure $285 Fee waiver available if adequate signatures are obtained. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 14.52.030. A.5 Alternative Parking Residential $428 21A.52.040 .A.3 Nonresidential $785 21A.52.040 .A.3 Amendments Master plan $1,070 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (10.9a.204). Utah Code Annoted 10.9A.510 60 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Zoning map amendment $1,142 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.50.040.B Zoning text amendment $1,142 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.50.040.B Annexation $1,427 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) Utah Code Annoted 10.2.401.5 Appeal of a Decision Administrative decision $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Historic Landmark Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Planning Commission $285 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.16.030.B Appearance Before the Zoning Enforcement Hearing Office First scheduled hearing No charge 21A.20.90 Second scheduled hearing $71 21A.20.90 Billboard Construction or Demolition including the demolition of a non-conforming billboard $285 21A.46.160.D.3 & 21A.46.160.L.2 Conditional Building and Site Design Review $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E). 21A.59.070.B Conditional Use $856 See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 21A.54.060.C Condominium Preliminary $571 Plus $37 per unit. See also fee for required public notices (21.A.10.010.E). 20.56.40.B Final $428 Plus $24 per unit. 20.56.40.B Declaration of Surplus Real Property $428 2.58.040 Historic Landmarks Commission Review (Application) Major Alterations of a principal building $36 $100 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 New construction of a principal building $285 $2,982 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Demolition of a contributing principal building $571 $2,406 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Relocation of a contributing principal building $285 $303 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Reduction to boundaries of the H Historic Pres. Overlay District $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 Revocation of a Landmark Site $2,999 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010 E) 21A.51.050 Economic Hardship $2,050 Plus $200/hour up to $20,000. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.34.020 Home Occupation Non-conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Conditional No charge Fee could be assessed in future as per ordinance 21A.36.030 Outdoor Dining Outdoor Dining Application $30 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (1-5 tables) $120 21A.40.065 Outdoor Dining Permit Fee (6 or more tables) $180 21A.40.065 Planned Development $856 Plus $121 per acre in excess of (1) acre. See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.55 Signs 61 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Permit fee for signs Based on the adopted Building Permit Fee Schedule 21A.46.030 Plan checking fee $0.13 Of building permit value 21A.46.030 Inspection tag $14 21A.46.030 Site Development Permit $285 Plus $61 per acre in excess of one (1) acre 18.28.040.E Special Exception $285 For historic structures, see Section 21A.34.020 and 21A.46.070V. See also fee for required public notices 21A.10.010.E) 21A.52.040.A.3 Street Closure $428 See also fee for required public notices. 2.58.040 Subdivision Amendments $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Preliminary Plat $428 Plus $121 per lot. See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Subdivision Final Plat $856 Plus $121 per lot. 20.04.120 Subdivision Vacations $428 See also fee for required public notices (20.36) 20.04.120 Engineering Review and Inspection Fee 5% of the 1st $100,000 of public improvemen ts & 2% for the amount above $100,000 20.04.120 Subdivision Lot Line Adjustment $284 20.04.120 Subdivision Consolidating Lots $273 20.04.120 Temporary Uses $285 21A.42.060.B Zoning Variance $428 See also fee for required public notices (21A.10.010.E) 21A.18.040.B As per applicable sections of the Ccity and / or Sstate Ccode, a fee will be assessed for required public notices. This may include sending notice by 1st class U.S. Mail to property owners within a certain radius of the subject property and / or advertising required public hearings in a newspaper of general circulation. A fee for each required public hearing will be assessed. The noticing fee is authorized through the following sections of the Zzoning Oordinance and Sstate Llaw: Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.10.010.E and Utah State Code Annotated 10.9a.204 Section 10-9a-501. and 510 2395 2396 SECTION 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 2397 first publication. 2398 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2399 2023. 2400 ______________________________ 2401 CHAIRPERSON 2402 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 2403 2404 ______________________________ 2405 62 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT CITY RECORDER 2406 2407 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 2408 2409 2410 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 2411 2412 ______________________________ 2413 MAYOR 2414 ______________________________ 2415 CITY RECORDER 2416 (SEAL) 2417 2418 Bill No. ________ of 2023. 2419 Published: ______________. 2420 Ordinance amending H Historic Preservation Overlay District regs (legislative) 6.29.23 2421 2) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00123 February 8, 2023 Mayor Mendenhall initiated the petition for amendments to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District March 13, 2023 Notice emailed to all SLC registered recognized organizations including a draft of the proposed changes March 20, 2023 Information and a draft of the proposed changes was posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House webpage April 17, 2023 Staff attended the Sugar House community council meeting to discuss the proposed text amendment and answer any questions from the community April 20, 2023 Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv April 28, 2023 Staff Report posted online and sent to the Historic Landmark Commission May 3, 2023 Staff attended the Central City Neighborhood Council meeting to discuss the proposed text amendment and answer any questions from the community May 4, 2023 Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to City Council May 11, 2023 Planning Commission public hearing notices were posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv May 18, 2023 Staff Report posted online and sent to the Planning Commission May 24, 2023 Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to City Council May 30, 2023 Draft ordinance forwarded to the Attorney’s Office for review June 29, 2023 Revised draft ordinance sent to Attorney’s office for review (technical changes were made to the draft during the month of June) June 29, 2023 Final ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office June 30, 2023 Transmitted 3) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00123 – A petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall for a text amendment that would generally impact the H Historic Preservation Overlay District which applies to landmark sites or properties within a local historic district. The H Historic Preservation Overlay District also outlines process and standards for local historic designations, boundary adjustments, and revocation of local historic designation. The purpose of the proposed text amendments is to make the ordinance easier to use for applicants, property owners, staff, and the historic landmark commission in its administration, as well as create new processes for adopting and updating historic resource surveys. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the zoning ordinance related to the H Historic Preservation Overlay District and changes would apply citywide. DATE: Date #1 and Date #2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. All persons interested and present will be given an opportunity to be heard in this matter. his meeting will be held via electronic means, while potentially also providing for an in person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building,located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, please visit the website www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings/ or call 801-535-7654 to obtain connection information. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Amy Thompson at 801-535-7281 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail amy.thompson@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535- 7600, or relay service 711. 4) PETITION INITIATION 5) PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE STAFF REPORT Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From:cindy cromer To:Thompson, Amy Subject:(EXTERNAL) comment to the Planning Commission re the Ordinance for Historic Preservation Date:Wednesday, May 24, 2023 3:35:14 PM I am addressing Section D, Historic Status Determination in the proposal. I failed in my effort to convince the Landmarks Commission that the process of changing the contributory or noncontributory status of a building in an historic district would have inadequate public participation under the proposal. There is no question that there is a robust public process for identifying the status during the survey process. Currently there is nothing specified in the adopted ordinance at all about changing the determination made in the survey. We do need a process adopted as ordinance. I am arguing that interested parties should reasonably be able to find out about reversing the previous public process. This proposal does not offer that. It is silent regarding notification. So I am going to walk to you through what I would have to do under this proposal to challenge a decision made by the Zoning Administrator about contributory status. I would not be notified of the request through the community council, as someone who had spoken at an initial public hearing, or as a nearby property owner. I would not be able to submit information prior to the Zoning Administrator's decision. I have no idea where to find the decision. The proposed ordinance specifies that the property owner and the members of the Landmarks Commission would be informed. The decision is "on file" in city records. I would have 10 days from the decision to file an appeal, which of course assumes that I could find out about the decision before the 10 days expired. I would have to establish standing and pay a fee to appeal a decision which could affect my investments in the Central City and Avenues Historic Districts significantly. My appeal would have to be based on very narrow requirements. The distinction between contributory and noncontributory buildings in local historic districts is the essence of the City's regulation of land use. To illustrate just how significant this authority is-An owner has the right to demolish a noncontributory structure but should expect to encounter significant obstacles if trying to demolish a contributory structure. The distinction between contributory and noncontributory structures is the core of land use regulation in historic districts. Item B10 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Public Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: Substantial Amendments to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan for Unallocated Housing Program Income Funds MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt a resolution authorizing substantial amendments to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan, and project allocations for dormant housing program income funds. MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 19, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Substantial Amendments to the Salt Lake City five-year 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and one-year 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan to recognize and utilize U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) generated Program Income. STAFF CONTACT: Tony Milner, Director of Housing Stability 801-535-6168, tony.milner@slcgov.com Heather Royall, Deputy Director of Housing Stability 801-535-7273, heather.royall@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Substantial Amendments and appropriate the associated funding. Per the regulatory requirements outlined in HUD’s Substantial Amendment Section in 24 CFR 91.505 (b), HOME Program Income requirements in 24 CFR 92.503, CDBG Program Income requirements in 24 CFR 570.504, and the City’s approved 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, Salt Lake City must request Substantial Amendments to: •The five-year 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan •The one-year 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan These amendments are required to recognize additional funds, for utilization of previously unallocated HUD CDBG and HOME Program Income. 09/25/2023 09/25/2023 BUDGET IMPACT: $16,073,221 of program income generated from HUD program funding. Part of these funds have been recognized through previous budget action and the remainder will need to be recognized through a forthcoming budget amendment. Funding allocations and programmatic expenses will not impact the City’s General Fund or future annual HUD allocations. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On an annual basis, the Division of Housing Stability (“Housing Stability”) deploys millions of dollars to address the critical needs of residents and neighborhoods. Funding is ultimately provided to a variety of City departments, agencies, and outside organizations to implement projects and programs. Some of these projects and programs generate revenue, known as program income (“PI”). PI generated as a result of activities originally funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) and Home Investment Partnership Program (“HOME”) programs retain their federal identity in perpetuity and are subject to all federal requirements. The Administration and Council have been working toward the recognition and allocation of HUD PI that has been received and retained by the City and is available for housing and community development activities. While previous briefings have also considered PI generated from non-HUD sources, this transmittal focuses solely on the unallocated HUD PI, which is subject to federal requirements and needs to be formally recognized through the HUD Consolidated Plan (“Con Plan”) framework. To formally recognize these funds, substantial amendments to the City’s 2020-2024 Con Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (“Substantial Amendments”) need to be adopted by the City Council and approved by HUD. A status update is as follows: Complete: • February 7, 2023: The Department of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”) and Housing Stability briefed the City Council on unallocated HUD PI, and the City Council provided policy direction on the utilization and allocation of these funds. • June 13, 2023: The City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2024 (“FY 24") budget, which includes the following HUD PI appropriations: o Revenue: The HUD PI balance as of April 30, 2023. o Expenditures: $6,476,014 of PI to the RDA’s Housing Development Loan Program (“HDLP”) to be administered through a notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”). • August 15, 2023: CAN and Housing Stability briefed the City Council on the Administration’s proposed funding allocations for the HUD PI revenue that is not appropriated to a program, activity, or project in the FY 24 budget. Current: • This transmittal will initiate the process with the City Council to adopt the Substantial Amendments. • Upon submittal of this transmittal to the City Council, Housing Stability will commence the required 30-day minimum public comment period that includes various noticing and outreach requirements. Next Steps: • The City Council holds a public hearing to be scheduled anytime within the public comment period. • After the public hearing, the City Council considers and adopts a resolution approving the Substantial Amendments and corresponding budget allocations – refer to Exhibit 6: Resolution. Prior to adoption, modifications can be made to the resolution to incorporate feedback from the Council or the public. • Once approved by the City Council, Housing Stability will submit the Substantial Amendments to HUD. HUD has 30-days to approve the amendments. • A FY 24 budget amendment will be required for the following: o Revenue True Up: The substantial amendments are based on the HUD PI balance as of June 30, 2023, however the FY 24 revenue appropriations are based on the HUD PI balance as of April 30, 2023. As such, a budget amendment will be required to true up the budget revenues to reflect the June 30 balances. o Funding Expenditures: A budget amendment will be required to appropriate and clarify the expenditures identified through the substantial amendments in the FY 24 budget. Available Funds PI is gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated from the use of CDBG or HOME funds. This may include, but is not limited to, proceeds from the disposition or sale of real property purchased or improved with CDBG or HOME funds; income from the use or rental of real property acquired, constructed, or improved with CDBG or HOME funds; and payments of principal and interest on loans made using CDBG or HOME funds. Since the June 2023 transmittal, the unallocated HUD PI has continued to generate new revenue with the following balances as of June 30, 2023, at the close of the Fiscal Year: PROGRAM INCOME SOURCE 6/30/2023 BALANCE CDBG $6,133,510.71 HOME $9,890,743.13 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI)* $ 48,967.10 TOTAL $16,073,220.94 *Note: ADDI is a discontinued HUD initiative that was provided through the HOME program. As such, the ADDI Program Income is treated as HOME Program Income and used in accordance with HOME regulations. Proposed Allocations The Administration proposes the following funding allocations, considering the various eligible uses and timeliness requirements of the different funding sources: TYPE PROJECT/PROGRAM CDBG HOME/ADDI DEVELOPMENT RDA NOFA $6,939,710.23* 1159 West Temple (Book Cliffs) $3,000,000.00 ACQUISITION Strategic, Opportunity Area, or CLT Property Acquisition $5,633,510.71 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP) $250,000.00 Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements $250,000.00 TOTAL $6,133,510.71 $9,939,710.23 *Note: An RDA NOFA allocation of $6,476,014.00 in HOME PI has been formally approved by City Council and budgeted for expenditures as part of the FY24 budget process. The additional $463,696.23 in proposed funding allocation to the RDA NOFA accounts for additional HOME PI received through June 30, 2023. Additional information on the proposed projects and activities is as follows: 1. DEVELOPMENT RDA NOFA, $6,939,710.23 1159 S West Temple, up to $3,000,000.00 • RDA NOFA Funding will be allocated to specific projects via a competitive Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) through the RDA’s Housing Development Loan Program (“HDLP”). • 1159 S West Temple (Book Cliffs Lodge) Due to the inter-governmental relationship between the City and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (“HASLC”), the Administration inquired with HASLC on development projects that, once a funding gap is filled, are shovel-ready and would be on a development schedule that would meet HUD’s timeliness requirements. The project, located at 1159 S West Temple and known as Book Cliffs Lodge continues to have a funding gap. Up to $3,000,000.00 is proposed to be combined with the funding already allocated by the RDA to provide construction financing for the project. Funding would be allocated subject to the underwriting and lending standards outlined in the RDA’s HDLP policy. The project is adjacent to City-owned property by Smith’s Ballpark and will include ~55 units ranging from approximately 30% to 60% of the area median income (“AMI”). 2. ACQUISITION Strategic, East Side, and/or CLT Property Acquisition, $5,633,510.71 • Due to strict timeliness requirements for CDBG, the acquisition of property is the likeliest way for the City to meet spend down requirements. As such, the Administration recommends allocating the majority of CDBG PI for the acquisition of property, as follows: o A partnership between CAN, RDA, and/or the HASLC to identify and purchase property that is either located in a strategic location or in a high opportunity area for development of affordable housing; or o Single-family homes and/or missing middle typology housing that will be incorporated into to the City’s CLT, with the City retaining ownership of the land in perpetuity and homeowners purchasing the housing units. 3. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Neighborhood Building Improvement Program, $250,000 Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, $250,000 • Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (“NBIP”) The Council has expressed interest in committing a portion of CDBG PI to the NBIP, aka the façade program. The Administration recommends allocating $250,000 to the NBIP, which would be combined with the $925,000 already allocated through the FY24 HUD funding process. This will bring the FY24 total to $1,175,000, which is almost double that of the previous fiscal year’s budget. Housing Stability has already issued a competitive application process and will increase the number of projects awarded funded if the Council appropriates these additional funds. • Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements The Council has expressed interest in committing a portion of CDBG PI to sidewalk and/or infrastructure improvements, with a focus on the City’s west side. The Administration recommends allocating $250,000 to this initiative, to be combined with other CDBG infrastructure funds that are unexpended and continue to be factored into the CDBG timeliness ratio, including: o $322,000, FY 21-22 bus stop improvements o $92,789, FY 22-23 bus stop improvements o $550,000, FY 22-23 Ballpark TRAX pedestrian crossing PROPOSED SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS: Due to the City’s unallocated HUD PI funding, which has not previously been formally allocated by Council action to projects and recognized in our five-year Consolidated Plan or any subsequent one-year Annual Action Plans to HUD, Substantial Amendments are required for both the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. HUD REQUIREMENTS HUD’s Substantial Amendment Section 24 CFR 91.505 (b), outlines the criteria for Substantial Amendment and states “the jurisdiction shall identify in its Citizen Participation Plan the criteria it will use for determining what constitutes a Substantial Amendment. It is these Substantial Amendments that are subject to a citizen participation process, in accordance with the jurisdiction's citizen participation plan.” SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN REQUIREMENTS Salt Lake City’s Consolidated Plan for 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan defines a Substantial Amendment as: 1. A proposed use of funds that does not address a goal or underlying strategy already identified in the governing Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan; or 2. Increasing funding levels for a given project by 100% or more of the previously adopted amount; or 3. Decreasing funding levels for a given project by 100% AND pivoting impacted funds to another approved use during an action plan period; or 4. A change to a regulatory requirement or additional allocated funding from the US Department of Housing & Urban Development that defines that a Substantial Amendment must be completed. Substantial Amendment to 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan: #1 Recognize Additional Allocations of Funding Section SP-35, The Strategic Plan, Anticipated Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 148 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The HUD PI represents additional allocations of funding, in excess of 100% of previously adopted amounts, for projects in Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial Amendment. With Council’s adoption of the resolution the City’s current 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding available. #2 Add New Goals Eligible for Funding Considerations Section SP-45, The Strategic Plan, Goals. HUD 24 CFR 91.215(a). Located on page 159 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. An allocation of funding for Neighborhood Improvements, to provide Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, would be an addition to the list of adopted goals, for projects considered under the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial Amendment. With Council’s adoption of the resolution the City’s current 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan will be amended to reflect the addition of Neighborhood Improvements as an eligible goal. (See Exhibit 4, Substantial Amendment to SP-35 Anticipated Resources and SP- 45 Goals) Substantial Amendment to 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan: #1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding Section AP-15, Expected Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 27 of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. A Substantial Amendment is required to recognize the unallocated HUD PI. These funds represent an additional allocation of funding, in excess of 100% of previously adopted amounts, 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. The City’s current 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding expected to be available during the program year. With Council’s adoption of the resolution the City’s 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding available. #2 Add New Projects to be Funded Under the Annual Action Plan Section AP-35, Projects. HUD 24 CFR 91.220(D). Located on page 35 of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. A Substantial Amendment is required to provide an allocation of funding for Neighborhood Improvements, to provide Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, as an eligible project to be funded under the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. With Council’s adoption of the resolution the City’s 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the addition of Neighborhood Improvements: Sidewalk & Infrastructure Improvements as an eligible project. (See Exhibit 4, Substantial Amendment to AP-15 Expected Resources and AP-35 Projects) PUBLIC PROCESS: A 30-day-minimum public comment period will begin following the submittal of this transmittal to the City Council and specifically for the above-mentioned Substantial Amendment components. The public comment period will be posted in English and Spanish. At a minimum the public comment period will be noticed through the following channels: a newspaper of general circulation, Housing Stability’s comprehensive contact mailing/email list, Housing Stability’s website, the State’s Public Notice website, and provided to the Mayor’s Office and the Council Office for dissemination on social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication and noticing. At least one public hearing, to be scheduled at City Council’s discretion, will also be held during the 30-day-minimum public comment period. EXHIBITS: 1) Eligible Uses of CDBG and HOME PI Funds 2) 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2024 Citizens Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan) 3) 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan 4) Substantial Amendments Regarding HUD Unallocated PI 5) Substantial Amendments to SP-35 Anticipated Resources, SP-45 Goals, AP-15 Expected Resources, and AP-35 Projects 6) Resolution ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES CON PLAN ELIGIBLE TYPICAL NATIONAL OBJECTIVE DETAILS HOUSING Rehabilitation: Single and Multi-Unit Residential YES Construction of Housing (limited)YES Direct Homeownership Assistance YES Housing Counseling YES Public Housing Modernization YES Energy Efficiency Improvements YES Rehabilitation Administration YES Lead-Based Paint/Lead Hazard Test/Abatement YES Code Enforcement YES PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS & FACILITIES Senior Centers NO Facility for Persons with Disabilities NO Homeless Facilities (not operating costs)NO Youth Centers/Facilities NO Neighborhood Facilities YES Parks, Recreational Facilities YES Parking Facilities YES Solid Waste Disposal Facilities NO Flood and Drainage Facilities NO Water/Sewer Improvements NO Sidewalks YES Child Care Centers NO Fire Stations/Equipment NO Health Facilities NO Removal of Architectural Barriers NO PROPERTY ACQUISITION Acquisition of Property Disposition Clearance and Demolition Clean-up of Contaminated Sites/Brownfields Relocation ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Commercial/ Industrial Building Rehabilitation YES Commercial/Industrial Land Acquisition/ Disposition NO Commercial/Industrial Infrastructure Development NO Commercial/Industrial Building Construction NO Micro-Enterprise Assistance NO Note: Public Services and Administration & Planning activities are not listed, as they cannot be funded with the Dormant PI. Note: "LMI" is low and moderate-income, which is generally defined as 80% of the area median income (AMI) and below. Note: CDBG funds for Housing activities must be utilized for permant housing and not transitional or emergency shelters. Housing activities for multifamily units are limited to new construction. Rehabilition and new constuction activiteis are eligible for single-family and duplexes. LMI persons, families, or area; businesses providing LMI jobs or services; prevent or eliminate blight; meet unfunded, urgent need EXHIBIT B: ELIGIBLE USES of FUNDS - CDBG LMI persons, families, or area; prevent or eliminate blight; meet unfunded, urgent local need May buy, clean up, demolish, dispose of, and relocate occupants from a property for a public purpose. May assist commercial or industrial activities. All activities must result in achievement of a CDBG national objective, typically by creating or retaining permanent LMI jobs or serving an LMI area. Project examples range from working capital loans, to neighborhood store expansion. LMI households; prevent or eliminate blight; meet unfunded, urgent local need May rehabilitate or reconstruct or convert structures, provide homeownership assistance, and housing counseling. Includes all activity costs such as applicant intake, construction specs and procurement, and construction. All activities must result in achievement of a CDBG national objective, typically by providing housing to an LMI household. LMI households; prevent or eliminate blight; meet unfunded, urgent local need May acquire, construct, reconstruct, or rehabilitate a public facility or improvement. All activities must result in achievement of a CDBG national objective, typically by providing access to a facility or improvement to an LMI clientele or to LMI persons residing in a qualified area. EXHIBIT 1 ELIGIBLE PROJECTS CON PLAN ELIGIBLE ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES TYPES OF ASSISTANCE TBRA YES New Construction - Rental and Homeownership YES Rehabilitation YES Reconstruction YES Conversion (Adaptive Reuse to Housing)YES Site Improvements & Infrastructure YES Acquisition of Property or Vacant Land YES Demolition YES Homeowner Refinancing (concurrent with Rehab)YES Project Operating Reserve YES Project-Related Soft Costs Note: Administration & Planning activities are not listed, as they cannot be funded with the Dormant PI. Rental Housing or Tenant- Based Rental Assistance: 60% AMI < 5 or > units: 20% of units at 50% AMI < All funds must be for 80% AMI and below. EXHIBIT B: ELIGIBLE USES of FUNDS - HOME HOME allows virtually any form of financial assistance, or subsidy (i.e. grants, loans, interest subsidies, equity investments, loan guarantees) to be provided for eligible projects and to eligible beneficiaries. 2020 - 2024 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan HUD PROGRAM YEARS 2020 - 2024 FISCAL YEARS 2021 - 2025 EXHIBIT 2 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL CITY COUNCIL JAMES ROGERS ANDREW JOHNSTON CHRIS WHARTON ANA VALDEMOROS DARIN MANO DAN DUGAN AMY FOWLER Prepared by S A L T L A K E C I T Y HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBHORHOODS 2 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary (ES) ...................................................................................................................................... 4 a. ES-05 Executive Summary – 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ................................................................... 5 II. The Process (PR) .................................................................................................................................................. 10 a. PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 24 CFR 91.200(b) ............................................................ 11 b. PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) ............................................................................. 11 c. PR-15 Citizen Participation ................................................................................................................ 26 III. Needs Assessment (NA) ................................................................................................................................ 48 a. NA-05 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 49 b. NA-10 Needs Assessment – Housing Needs Assessment – 91.205 (a,b,c) ..................................... 54 c. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b )(2) ..................... 70 d. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b )(2)....... 73 e. NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b )(2) ............. 75 f. NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205 (b)(2) .................................... 76 g. NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205 (b) .................................................................................................... 79 h. NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205 (c) ........................................................................ 82 i. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment – 91.205 (b,d) .......................................... 85 j. NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) .................................... 93 IV. Housing Market Analysis (MA) .................................................................................................................. 97 a. MA-Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 98 b. MA-10 Number of Housing Units 91.120(a) & (b)(2) ...................................................................100 c. MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing – 91.210 (a) ...........................................104 d. MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210 (a) ................................107 e. MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210 (b) ......................................................................111 f. MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210 (c) ...............................................................113 g. MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210 (d) ......................................................116 h. MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210 (e) ..................................................................118 i. MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.210 (f) ..................................120 j. MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis: Discussion .....................................................................128 k. MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing Occupied by Low - and Moderate-Income Households – 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) ..............................................................................................132 l. MA-65 Hazard Mitigation – 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(2) ...................................................................133 V. Strategic Plan (SP) ............................................................................................................................................135 a. SP -05 Overview ...................................................................................................................................136 b. SP -10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) ...................................................................................137 c. SP -25 Priority Needs – 91.215 (a)(2) .................................................................................................142 d. SP -30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (a )(2) ...............................................................147 e. SP -35 Anticipated Resources – 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2) ........................................................149 3 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 f. SP -40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215 (k) .....................................................................154 g. SP -45 Goals ..........................................................................................................................................160 h. SP -50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215 (c) .......................................162 i. SP -55 Strategic Plan Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215 (h) ......................................162 j. SP -60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215 (h ) ...................................................................................166 k. SP -65 Lead-based Paint Hazards – 91.215 (i) ..............................................................................170 l. SP -70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215 (j) .......................................................................................171 m. SP -80 Monitoring – 91.230 ................................................................................................................172 VI. Appendix A: 2020-2024 Fair Housing Action Plan .........................................................................174 VII. Appendix B: Summary of Public Comment and Citizen Participation ...............................186 VIII. Appendix C: 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan......................................................................286 IX. Appendix D: 2020-2021 Action Plan......................................................................................................296 4 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary serves as an introduction and summarizes the process of developing the plan, the key findings utilized to develop priorities, and how the proposed goals and objectives will address those priorities. 5 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 ES-05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1. INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is the product of a collaborative process to identify housing and community development needs and to establish goals, priorities, and strategies to address those needs. This five-year plan provides a framework for maximizing and leveraging the city’s block grant allocations to build healthy and sustainable communities that better focus fundi ng from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) formula block grant programs. The entitlement grant programs guided by the Consolidated Plan are as follows: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, suitable living environments, and expanded economic activities to persons of low- and moderate-income. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for low -income households. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Similar to cities across the country, Salt Lake City is faced with housing prices that are rising more rapidly than wages, resulting in a lack of affordable housing. This Consolidated Plan outlines a comprehensive set of policies that respond to the City’s current challenges by u tilizing new and collaborative strategies. Affordable and safe housing serves as the foundation for individuals to move out of poverty and to avoid homelessness. However, it is increasingly recognized that housing must be connected to opportunities for education, transit, recreation, economic development, healthcare, and services. Instead of addressing these needs separately, Salt Lake City takes a comprehensive and geographic approach to community development by integrating these various aspects into its Consolidated Plan. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan encourages investment in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and supports at-risk populations by promoting goals that increase access to housing, transportation, economic development, and critical services. By building upon the growth and successes realized in the previous Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City is continuing to work toward closing the gap in a number of socioeconomic indicators, such as improving housing affordability, job training, access to transportation for low -income households, homeless prevention services, and medical/dental/behavioral health services for at -risk populations. In addition to expanding opportunity for low -income households living in concentrated areas of poverty, Salt Lake City will continue to support essential housing and supportive services for the City’s most vulnerable populations, with focus on the chronically homeless, homeless families, disabled persons, victims of domestic violence, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and low-income elderly persons. Process & Overview 6 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is organized into four primary sections, as follows: I. The Process The Process section of the Plan outlines the development of the Plan, including citizen participatio n efforts and stakeholder involvement. II. Needs Assessment (NA) The Needs Assessment section provides an analysis of housing, homeless and community development needs, with focus on the needs of low -income households, racial and ethnic minorities, homeless persons, and non-homeless special needs populations. III. Housing Market Analysis (MA) The Housing Market Analysis section provides information and data on Salt Lake City’s housing market, including an evaluation of local resources. The housing marke t analysis supplements information supplied by the needs assessment and establishes a framework for five -year goals and priorities to be developed. IV. Five -Year Strategic Plan (SP) Once community needs, market conditions, and resources are identified, program goals, specific strategies, and benchmarks for measuring progress are set forth in the Strategic Plan section of the Consolidated Plan. Efforts are prioritized to direct the allocation of federal funding to maximize impact within the community. Throughout this Plan period, Salt Lake City will look to address strategies and funding resources that help address community responses to emergency need. This may include preparing for, responding to, and recovery from community wide emergencies. These em ergencies would likely be identified through a national, state or local declaration of a state of emergency. Where appropriate, Salt Lake City will maximize all resources to address such instances. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan planning process will co nclude with the development of the City’s First -Year Action Plan. The First-Year Action Plan will outline the activities and funding priorities for the first year of the Consolidated Plan, covering July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021. 2. OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN THE PROCESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS 5-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN 7 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is a strategic plan focused on building Neighborhoods of Opportunity to promote capacity in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and to support the City’s most vulnerable populations. Identified below are 5 goals with associated strategies to achieve the goals. Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units av ailable for income eligible residents Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and end homelessness Expand housing support for aging resident that ensure access to continued stable housing Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit in target areas Support access to transportation prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas Build Community Resiliency Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability. Provide job training/vocational training program s targeting low-income and vulnerable populations including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement a nd visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population Homeless Services To expand access supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring. Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness Provide support for homeless services includi ng Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services 8 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Behavioral Health To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to sup porting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation 3. EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE In preparation for development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division reviewed Consolidated Annual Performance Reports (CAPERs) submitted to HUD under the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The CAPERs provide an evaluation of past performance and accomplishments in relation to established goals and pri orities. The City’s program year 2016-2017 & 2017- 2018 CAPER can be viewed at https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/consolidated -plan/con-plans-aaps- capers/. During the course of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, the City has been able to meet the vast majority of established goals and priorities. In addition, the City was able to comply with statutes and regulations set by HUD. TABLE ES -05.1 SALT LAKE CITY 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS Goal Description Estimated Projected 1 Improve and Expand the Affordable Housing Stock 1,325 1,430 2 Expand Homeownership Opportunities 110 70 3 Provide Housing & Related Services to Persons with HIV/AIDS 725 925 4 Provide Housing for Homeless & At -Risk of Homeless Individuals and Families 965 3,217 5 Provide Day-to-Day Services for Homeless Individuals & Families 15,000 7,380 6 Provide Public Services to Expand Opportunity & Self -Sufficiency for At-Risk Populations 35,000 24,385 7 Revitalize Business Nodes in Target Areas 75 50 8 Improve the Quality of Public Facilities 1,093 1,344 9 Improve Infrastructure in Distressed Neighborhoods & Target Areas 100,000 139,112 4. SUMMARY OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS AND CONSULTATION PROCESS: Citizen participation is an integral part of the Consolidated Plan planning process, as it ensures goals and priorities are defined in the context of community needs and preferences. In addition, the citizen participation process provides a format to educate the community about the City’s federal grant programs. To this end, Salt Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stakeholders and community members during the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Pl an. A comprehensive public engagement process included a citywide survey (2,000+ respondents), public hearings, public meetings, one -on-one meetings, stakeholder committee meetings, task force meetings, internal technical committee meetings, and a public c omment period. In total, over 4,000 residents participated in providing input into this plan. 9 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The City received input and buy -in from residents, homeless service providers. Low -income service providers, anti-poverty advocates, healthcare providers, housin g advocates, housing developers, housing authorities, community development organizations, educational institutions, transit authority planners, City divisions and departments, among others. For more information on citizen participation efforts, refer to t he PR-15 Citizen Participation section of this Plan. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: A summary of public comments will be available in the appendix of the finalized Consolidated Plan. 6. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS OR VIEWS NOT ACCE PTED AND THE REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THEM: Comments received to date have been considered and utilized to inform the needs assessment, goal setting, and prioritization of funding. 7. SUMMARY: The Salt Lake City Council is scheduled to adopt the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan on April 21, 2020. 10 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 THE PROCESS The Process section of the Consolidated Plan identifies the lead agencies responsible for the development of the plan and the administration of the grants. In addition, this section outlines the process of consulting with service providers and other stakeholders, as well as citizens participation efforts. 11 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PR-05 LEAD & RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES - 24 CFR 91.200(b) DESCRIBE AGENCY/ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE FO R ADMINISTRATION OF EACH GRANT PROGRAM AND FUNDING SOURCE. The following agencies/entities are responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and administrating grant programs: TABLE PR -05.1 LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES Agency Role Name Department/Agency CDBG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division HOPWA Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division HOME Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division ESG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division Salt Lake City is the Lead Agency for grant funds received from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement programs as listed above. The City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) Division in the Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) is responsible for the administration of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement grants which includes the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), th e HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program. HAND is also responsible for the preparation of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, and Consol idated Annual Performance Evaluation Reports (CAPER). Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information: Salt Lake City welcomes questions or comments regarding the Consolidated Plan. Please contact the following: Deputy Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Jennifer Schumann at Jennifer.Schumann@slcgov.com or (801) 535-7276. PR- 10 CONSULTATION- 91.100, 91.200(B), 91.215(I) INTRODUCTION: The City conducted robust outreach with representatives of low -income neighborhoods, housing and social services providers, homeless shelter and homeless services providers, faith -based organizations, community stakeholders, City departments, and many others. In to tal, these comprehensive outreach efforts engaged over 4,000 stakeholders during a one-year period. The citizen participation process is described in greater detail in ‘PR-15 Citizen Participation.’ Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies. (91.215(I)). 12 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The City led a proactive, community-based process to solicit public and stakeholder input for t he development of the Consolidated Plan goals, strategies, and priorities. The City created a Stakeholder Advisory Committee that met three times during the planning process. In addition, the City worked directly with service providers and other government agencies to gather data used in the technical analysis for the Consolidated Plan. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness: Salt Lake City representatives actively participated in the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH), the entity responsible for oversight of the Continu um of Care (CoC). SLVCEH’s primary goal is to end homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. The Coalition gathers community consensus to crea te and fulfill established outcomes. Using these goals, the Coalition partners with key stakeholders to fill the needs of the Salt Lake County Valley community. City representatives served on the SLVCEH Steering Committee and actively participated in meeti ngs and efforts. Describe consultation with the Continuum of Care that serves the jurisdiction’s area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the admi nistration of HMIS: Working closely with the other two CoCs in the state- Mountainlands and Balance of State, as well as other city, state, and county representatives, City representatives provided direction and support for how funding SLVCEH’s priorities are considered in Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocations. Utilizing data sources like the annual ‘Point-in-Time Count’ and Utah Homeless Management Information System (UHMIS) outputs, City representatives worked with other SLVCEH members to assess pro gress on shared metrics such as an individual’s average length of homelessness, likelihood to return to homelessness, and the percentage of exits from emergency shelter, transitional housing, and rapid rehousing projects to permanent housing. The City has agreed to use common measures with other SLVCEH members to grade service providers. City representatives also actively participated in meetings regarding the funding, policies and procedures for the administration of the UHMIS. UHMIS helps homeless provi ders coordinate care, manage operations, and better serve clients by tracking client service needs over time. All ESG-funded entities participate in UHMIS. City representatives helped to develop consistent data standards and create a HMIS training manual . The manual provides guidance on HMIS data elements for CoCs, HMIS Lead Agencies, HMIS System Administrators, and users. City representatives helped to disseminate information regarding the accompanying HMIS Data Dictionary to define data elements and requirements for HMIS compliance for HMIS Vendors and System Administrators. DESCRIBE AGENCIES, GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCESS AND DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S CONSULTATIONS WITH HO USING, SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES AND OTHER ENTITIES: TABLE PR -10.1 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PARTICIPANTS STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE 13 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 1 Agency/Group/Organization Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Refugees What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching pri orities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 2 Agency/Group/Organization ASSIST Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities, Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Non-Homeless Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 3 Agency/Group/Organization Columbus Community Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Employment, Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these eff orts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 4 Agency/Group/Organization Community Development Corporation, Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that 14 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 5 Agency/Group/Organization Community Health Center of Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 6 Agency/Group/Organization Disability Law Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Law, Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 7 Agency/Group/Organization Donated Dental Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 8 Agenc y/Group/Organization First Step House Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health 15 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeless Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 9 Agency/Group/Organization Habitat for Humanity Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching pri orities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 10 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Housing Authority DBA Housing Connect Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these eff orts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 11 Agency/Group/Organization Intermountain Healthcare Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Impact Investment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus 16 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 12 Agency/Group/Organization Maliheh Free Clinic Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Refugess What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 13 Agency/Group/Organization NeighborWorks Salt Lake Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 14 Agency/Group/Organization Optum Health Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 15 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy 17 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 16 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Aging and Adult Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Seniors, Aging Services What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 17 Agency/Group/Organization Shelter the Homeless Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 18 Agency/Group/Organization South Valley Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Domestic Violence What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborat ive effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 19 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Community Action 18 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Food Bank, Early Education What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Anti - Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 20 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Department of Workforce Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Medicaid, Food, Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Strategy, Economic Development, Anti -Poverty Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 21 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Health and Human Rights Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Mental Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 22 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Transit Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Transit, Transportation What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities 19 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 23 Agency/Group/Organization Volunteers of America - Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeless Needs - Unaccompanied Youth, Homeless Strategy, Anti -Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 24 Agency/Group/Organization Young Women's Christian Association Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Children, Victims of Domestic Violence, Homeless, Victims What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 25 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee 20 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 26 Agenc y/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Council Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, City Policy, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non-Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographic ally focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 27 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Division of Economic Development Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occ ur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 28 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Engineering Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization 21 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 29 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 30 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographic ally focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working 22 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 31 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Transportation Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 32 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Civic Engagement Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to worki ng collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 33 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Police Departm ent Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Community Safety, Homeless Services, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee 23 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 34 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Sustainability Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations w ill continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 35 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Planning Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local Planning Organization What sections of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. TABLE PR -10.2 PLAN CONSULTATION Community Plan Consultations 24 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 1 Name of Plan 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Created in 2004, updated in 2013, this plan highlights initiatives centered on using the Housing First Model to end chronic homelessness. This plan places minimal restriction on persons to place them into safe housing. Housing goals include promoting the construction of safe, decent, and affordable homes for all income levels and to put speci fic emphasis on housing homeless persons. 2 Name of Plan Annual Point-in-Time Count Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan highlights an initiative to find homeless persons living on the streets and gather information in order to connect them with available services. By doing so, this will help policymakers and program administrators set benchmarks to measure progress toward the goal of ending homelessness, help plan services and programs to appropriately address local needs, identify strengths and gaps in a community’s current homelessness assistance system, inform public opinion, increase public awareness, attract resources, and create the most reliable estimate of people experiencing homelessness throughout Utah. 3 Name of Plan Growing SLC Lead Organization Salt Lake City How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy solutions over the five year period of this plan will focus on: 1) updates to zoning code, 2) preservation of long-term affordable housing, 3) establishment of a significant funding source, 4)stabilizing low -income tenants, 5) innovation in design, 6) partnerships and collaboration in housing, and 7) equitabi lity and fair housing. 4 Name of Plan Salt Lake City Master Plans Lead Organization Salt Lake City How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Salt Lake City's master plans provide vision and goals for future development in the City. The plans guide the development and use of land, as well as provide recommendations for particular places within the City. HAND utilized the City's master plans to align policies, goals, and priorities. 5 Name of Plan Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness Lead Organization Salt Lake County How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan emphasizes the promotion of a community‐wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness, provide funding for efforts to quickly re ‐house individuals and families who are homeless, which minimizes the trauma and dislocation caused by homelessness, promote access to and effective us e of mainstream programs, optimize self ‐sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness 6 Name of Plan State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The strategic plan establishes statewide goals and benchmarks on which to measure progress toward these goals. The plan recognizes that every community in Utah is different in their challenges, resources available, and needs of those who experience homelessness. 7 Name of Plan Strategic Economic Development Plan 25 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Lead Organization Salt Lake City Economic Development How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The Strategic Plan establishes an assessment of existing economic conditions of Salt Lake City through analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This information guided a strategic framework that builds on existing strengths and seeks to overcome identified challenges to ensure the City’s fiscal health, enhance its business climate, and promote economic growth. 8 Name of Plan Housing Gap Coalition Report Lead Organization Salt Lake Chamber How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Initiative that seeks to safeguard Utah's economic prosperity by ensuring home ownership is attainable and housing affordability is a priority, protecting Utahns quality of life and expanding opportunities for all. 9 Name of Plan Housing Affordability Crisis Lead Organization Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy brief regarding the current and projected state of rising housing prices in Utah and recommendations regarding what to do abo ut it. 10 Name of Plan Continuum of Care Lead Organization Salt Lake County How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Salt Lake County is responsible for coordinating the HUD Continuum of Care (CoC ) grant application process and community -wide goals on ending homelessness for the Salt Lake County CoC (UT-500). The CoC provides annual funding for local homeless housing and service programs. Although Salt Lake County Government manages the local process, ultimate funding decisions are made at the national level by HUD. The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness is responsible for oversight of the CoC. DESCRIBE COORDINATION AND COOPERATION WITH OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES, INCLUDING THE STATE AND ANY ADJACENT UNITS OF GENERAL LOCAL GOVERNME NT, IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN: (91.215(I)) The City coordinated and cooperated with other public entities, including the State of Utah, Salt Lake County, and neighboring cities on the implementa tion of the Consolidated Plan. These coordination efforts included City representatives serving on the Commission on Housing Affordability, the Utah Lt. Governor’s Affordable Housing Taskforce, the SLVCEH Steering Committee, and other State agencies. In ad dition, the City worked closely with Salt Lake County’s Housing and Community Development Division to foster regional collaboration for implementation. PR- 15 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION SUMMARIZE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS AND HOW IT IMPACTED GOAL SETTING. The City seeks to develop and enhance livable, healthy, and sustainable neighborhoods through robust planning and actions that reflect the needs and values of the local community. The City has stayed true to its values of inclusiveness and innovation by embracing opportunities to provide equitable services, offer funding, and create housing opportunities that improve lives for individuals and families in underserved and under - resourced communities. 26 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The City recognizes that citizen participation i s critical for the development of a Consolidated Plan that reflects the needs of affected persons and residents. In accordance with 24 CFR 91.105, the City solicited robust citizen participation over the course of an entire year. Between May 2019 and May 2 020, over 4,000 residents, stakeholders, agency partners, and City officials participated through proactive, community -based outreach, facilitated stakeholder engagement, and online surveys. The City involved affected persons and residents through stakeholder consultation, a community survey, community events, public meetings, public hearings, public comment periods, and one-on-one consultations. The following provides a synopsis of these efforts. CONSOLIDATED PLAN SURVEY The City created a survey to solicit feedback from residents regarding their priorities for the provision of housing, economic development, and public services in the most underserved and under -resourced areas of the community. The survey and all accompany ing collateral material was translated into Spanish, with additional language translation services available upon request. The survey was posted on the City website and social media platforms, third -party digital applications like Nextdoor and was distributed to thousands of residents through the City’s email listserv. In addition, digital flyers with Quick Response (QR) codes were created and distributed to stakeholder advisory and interdepartmental working group members. Members of these groups were ask ed to distribute the flyer to their respective constituencies. FIGURE PR -15.1 FLYER - ENGLISH 27 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.2 FLYER - SPANISH The survey fielding occurred from August 15 through September 30, 2019, with a total of 2,068 respondents completing it. Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. 28 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Street improvements, job creation, and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic development, and housing investments respectively. FIGURE PR -15.3 QUESTION #1 SURVEY RESULTS Respondents identified Poplar Grove, Fairpark, and Ballpark as the areas of the City with the most unmet needs for underserved individuals and families. The overwhelming majority of residents did not feel that the current 29 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 housing stock was sufficient to meet the needs of a growing City, particularly for low -income populations, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. FIGURE PR -15.4 MAP OF UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES FIGURE PR -15.5 MAP OF WHERE RESPONDENTS LIVE 30 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Since the Consolidated Plan survey was open to anyone who wanted to take it, results may have included self - selection bias. To supplement these results with a more representative understanding of resident sentiment, the City also compared them with the recently completed annual resident survey results. Both surveys showed that residents wanted more housing and transportation investments for underserved areas of the community. FIGURE PR -15.6 KEY TAKE-AWAYS FROM SLC ANNUAL SURVEY 31 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 REGIONAL COLLABORATION The City collaborated closely with Salt Lake County as the two entities worked in tandem on their respective Consolidated Plans. City staff consistently attended County meetings, and vice versa. In addition, the two entities worked together on the question wording and format for their respective surveys to ensure an “apples - to-apples” comparison of survey results. This approach allowed the City to consider both qualitative stakeholder feedback and quantitative survey results within a broader, regional context. In total, 222 Salt Lake City residents took the Salt Lake County survey. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE The City assembled a Stakeholder Advisory Committee comprised of nonprofit providers and agency partners. The Com mittee met three times in 2019 on July 30, September 24, and December 11. These meetings were strategically scheduled at critical milestones to maximize the impact stakeholder feedback would have in the identification of Consolidated Plan goals, objectives , and priorities. On average, approximately 40 stakeholders attended the meetings. FIGURE PR -15.7 STAKEHOLDER MEETING 32 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Initial Meeting- July 30, 2019 To maintain consistency with the resident survey, the City asked the same survey questions to the stakeholder advisory committee members via real -time, interactive polling software. Stakeholders ranked housing, homelessness, and mental health services as their top three unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs. They indicated street improvements, job training, and the construction of more affordable housing units should be top priorities for City inv estment. Stakeholders identified Glendale, Fairpark, Ballpark, and Poplar Grove as the areas within the city with the most unmet needs for under -served individuals and families. FIGURE PR -15.8 POLL RESULTS 33 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Second Meeting- September 24, 2019 To ensure stakeholder feedback would be meaningfully considered in the development of Consolidated Plan goals, the City held a second meeting and asked stakeholders to prioritize the unmet, unfunded needs that they had identified at the initial stakeholder meeting in July. Stakeholders indicated that their first and second priorities were housing and transportation respectively. They outlined a number of suggested fu nding strategies that the City, in partnership with nonprofit service providers, could consider employing. These strategies include, but are not limited to: Provide ‘aging in place’ programs Offer affordable housing voucher programs Provide client centered community -based case management Eliminate housing barriers Integrate transportation and land use considerations to facilitate affordable housing along transit corridors Improve regional collaboration with public and private-sector partners to improve efficiencies in the allocation of resources and to reduce redundancies Leverage innovative technologies to improve access to information regarding affordable housing demand and supply Offer free fare or reduced transit options Expand transit service in underserved communities Subsidize rideshare options FIGURE PR -15.9 34 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.10 Third Meeting- December 11, 2019 35 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 To further refine goals based on previous stakeholder feedback, the City held a third and final stakeholder advisory committee meeting in December. The meeting was held in conjunction with the City’s Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) members to ensure collaboration between City departments and nonprofit service providers. The meeting centered around the following five objectives: Homeless Services Housing Services Transportation Economic Development Behavioral Health: Mental Health & Substance Abuse Stakeholders and City staff indicated that client centered community -based case management, treatment services for mental health and substance abuse, as well as the provision of housing, transit passes, and job training to income-eligible residents were their top priorities to meet these five objectives. FIGURE PR -15.11 HOMELESS OBJECTIVE FIGURE PR -15.12 HOUSING OBJECTIVE 36 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.13 TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVE FIGURE PR -15.14 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 37 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.15 SUBSTANCE ABUSE & MENTAL HEALTH OBJECTIVE INTERDEPARTMENTAL TE CHNICAL ADVISORY GRO UP To facilitate coordination across the various City departments and ensure input from the City’s subject -matter experts was incorporated into the Consolidated Plan, the City created an Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG). Similar to the approach taken with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, the City met with this internal group three times during the course of the Consolidated Plan development process. Meetings occurred on July 29, September 23, and December 11, 2019. 38 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Initial Meeting- July 29, 2019 Similar to the approach taken with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, the City surveyed ITAG members via real-time, interactive polling using the same questions as the resident survey to ensure consistency and compare feedback “apples-to-apples.” ITAG members ranked housing and transportation as top priorities and expressed concern that there was insufficient housing to meet the needs of a growing population, particularly for low-income individuals and families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. While fee dback differed somewhat from the resident survey results, ITAG members generally expressed similar concerns as residents. ITAG members were also asked a series of questions regarding their most unfunded/underfunded, unmet needs. Through an interactive “sticky-note” exercise, they wrote their answers on notes and posted them on a wall in the room. A discussion regarding the results of the feedback then ensued and the notes were categorized based on key themes. Q1- What are your biggest unmet needs relate d to underserved and/or under resourced communities within the city? FIGURE PR -15.16 Q1 RESPONSES Q2- What are you currently doing to try to meet these needs? FIGURE PR -15.17 39 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Q2 RESPONSES Q3- What are your suggested strategies to help address these unmet needs through the Consolidated Plan? FIGURE PR -15.18 Q3 RESPONSES Q4- From your perspective, what is or could be your role as it relates to the Consolidated Plan? 40 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.19 Q4 RESPONSES Second Meeting- September 23, 2019 To ensure feedback from City staff would be meaningfully considered in the development of Consolidated Plan goals, the City held a second meeting and asked ITAG members to prioritize the unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs that they had identified at the initial ITAG meeting in July. Housing, transportation and the provision of needed services ranked as the highest priorities. FIGURE PR -15.20 FIGURE PR -15.21 41 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE PR -15.22 Final Meeting, December 11, 2019 42 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 As mentioned previously, the City held a third and final ITAG meeting in December in conjunction with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee to further refine goals based on feedback from previous meetings. The objective of a combined meeting was to ensure collaboration between City departments and nonprofit service providers. The meeting centered around the following five goals: Homeless Services Housing Services Transportation Economic Development Behavioral Health: Mental Health & Substance Abuse Stakeholders and City staff indicated that client centered community -based case management, treatment services for mental health and substance abuse, as well as the provision of housing, transit passes, and job training to income-eligible residents were their top priorities to meet these five goals. COMMUNITY EVENTS The City led a robust, grassroots citizen participation ef fort between May 2019 and November 2019. Staff attended community events such as the Rose Park Festival, the Sorenson CommUNITY Fair, Partners in the Park, Groove in the Grove, the Monster Block Party, and many others. In keeping with recommendations outli ned in the SLC Citizen Engagement Guide, the City engaged directly with the public through existing forums where opportunities existed to reach hundreds of people at a time. City staff managed information booths at dozens of events and solicited input from residents and stakeholders through interactive materials such as “sticker dots” that could be placed on poster boards to indicate priorities for City services and to identify neighborhoods with the most unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs. The efforts were hugely successful, with over 1,322 people participating. FIGURE PR -15.23 COMMUNITY PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL FUNDING 43 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PUBLIC MEETINGS City staff gave presentations regarding the Consolidated Plan to the Planning Commission and City C ouncil on September 25, 2019 and October 8, 2019, respectively. In these public meetings, staff presented information regarding the following: challenges of rising housing and transportation costs; housing and stability needs of an aging population; the homelessness challenges our community faces; and discussed the need to address behavioral health concerns which include both mental health and substance abuse. Staff provided a high -level explanation regarding the Consolidated Plan funding programs, the proc ess and timeline for developing the Plan, and eligible activities. Staff provided an interim report regarding citizen participation efforts and through conversation responded to questions regarding the outcomes of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and the ev olution of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. 44 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PUBLIC HEARINGS On October 24, 2019, the City conducted a General Needs Hearing to gather public comments on housing and community development needs as they relate to low - and moderate-income residents. One resident attended the hearing and two residents submitted comments via email. Comments were accepted from October 21 - November 1, 2019 and identified needs associated with streets, police, community gardens, and tennis courts. To ensure that as many residents as possible are able to participate in public hearings, subsequent public hearings were held to seek feedback on the Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan (AAP). These City Council Public Hearings were held on March 24, April 7, and April 21, 2020. Approximately 20 residents attended the public hearings and submitted electronic and/or provide direct feedback to the Council Members via WebEx Teleconference. All comments were accepted and considered in the final adoption of the plan. Notices of all public hearings were communicated within 14 calendar days of the hearing and posted on Utah’s Public Notice website. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS In addition to the 30-day public comment period required by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the City requires a 45-day public comment period on all master plan documents, including the Consolidated Plan. Both the HUD-required public comment period and the City -required public comment periods occurred simultaneously from February 7, 2020 through March 22, 2020. The City initiated the public comment period by contacting all impacted Registered Community Organizations. The proposed Consolidated Plan was published on the City’s website and the Utah Public Notice website, and printed copies were made available in the City Main Library and City Hall. PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY FIGURE PR -15.24 SUMMARY CHART Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Atten dance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Internet Outreach Survey Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 2,068 Respondents Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. Street improvements, job creation, and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic development, and housing investments respectively. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. 45 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Atten dance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Other: City Collaboration Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Committee Other: City Departments/Div isions On average, approximately 30-40 City staff attended multiple meetings to discuss targeted approach to utilizing federal funding sources. Discussions focused on identifying where the City could collaborate to better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Focus Group Stakeholder Advisory Committee Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing On average, approximately 40-50 representatives from non -profit service providers and government entities attended multiple meetings to discuss targeted approach to utilizing federal funding sources. Discussions focused on identifying where the City could collaborate to better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Meeting Presentation to City Council Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing Approximately 30 members of the public attended this meeting. Discussions focused on how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Meeting Presentation to Planning Commission Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing Approximately 30 members of the public attended this meeting. Discussions focused on how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. 46 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Atten dance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Public Hearing General Needs Hearing Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 1 resident attended the hearing and 2 residents emailed public comments Discussions focused on how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Hearing Consolidated Plan & Annual Action Plan (AAP) Hearing Planning Commissioners, City staff, Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 2 hearings were h eld, 8 members of the public attended, and 117 members of the public emailed public comments. Discussion focused on the support of individual applications and projects covering a range of immediate and long-term needs for the city. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Hearing Consolidated Plan Hearing City Councilmembers , City staff, Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 3 hearings were held, 6 members of the public emailed public comments. Discussion focused on the detail of the long-term planning document, the supporting data, and the priorities of the plan. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Other: Community Events Community Events Minorities; Non- English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broad community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing Over 1,322 respondents Staff attended dozens of community events over the course of the Consolidated Plan development process. Respondents ranked homelessness, substance abuse & mental health, All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. 47 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Atten dance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons and transportation services as their top priorities for the City. NEEDS ASSESSMENT The Needs Assessment of the Consolidated Plan, in conjunction with information gathered through consultations and the citizen participation process, provides a clear picture of Salt Lake City’s needs related to affordable housing, special needs housing, community development, and homelessness. From the Needs Assessment, the City identifies those needs with the highest priority to form the basis for the Strategic Plan and the programs and projects to be administered. 48 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 NA-05 OVERVIEW Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is intended to identify the most critical, unfunded gaps in community needs within the City, while coordinating with the larger regional needs of the entire Salt Lake Valley. The purpose of this Needs Assessment (NA) is to identify and evaluate needs, along with funding resources, and align those needs with the input received through the public participation process. Goals and strategies are then developed to target priority geographic locations and needed servic es in those areas, as well as citywide. Numerous news articles over the past year have spotlighted what is termed an “affordable housing crisis” in Utah. Due to public concern over housing issues, the Governor commissioned the Utah Department of Workforce Services to compile a statewide Affordable Housing Report in 2018 to identify causes and address issues. That report concludes: Significant population growth from natural increase and economic development continue to drive Utah’s demand for housing. Production factors such as the high value of land, higher material costs, and a shortage of construction labor significantly contribute to delays in developing an adequate supply of affordable housing. Unless Utah invests in a more pre -emptive approach to hou sing policy and plans 49 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 more effectively for its future needs, its housing shortage will only increase, and the gap in housing affordability will continue to widen. An effort has been made throughout to connect people with resources to expand opportunities for decent housing, economic development, and vibrant communities. The Needs Assessment clearly establishes that housing and community development needs have increased while funding to address those needs has diminished. As demonstrated in Figure NA-05.1, Salt Lake City’s annual CDBG award has decreased by $1.5 million over the past 16 years. This represents a 30% decrease in funding to address the critical housing and community development needs within the City. FIGURE NA-05.1 SALT LAKE CITY’S ANNUAL CD BG AWARD, 2003 - 2019 Source: HUD Awards and Allocations, HUD Exchange A summary of the key data identified in this study, leading to the strategies developed, is summarized below. In short, homeless services ranked high in the data researched, as well as in the surveys conducted as part of the public participation process. Affordable housing needs also scored high with both the public and in the evaluation of the data. Within these two overarching concerns, critical needs were also identified for assist ance with transportation accessibility and costs (thereby reducing cost burdens on low -income families and special populations), economic development opportunities (such as job training) to increase self -sufficiency, and substantial improvements in the services offered to those with behavioral health concerns. Residents need affordable housing in locations that are near public transportation, quality education, healthcare, and other service providers. Those with the ability to work need services to increa se overall self - sufficiency. Significant findings are as follows: Homeless The State of Utah Annual Report on Homelessness 2019 reported that there were 9,367 total homeless persons between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018. On average, these individuals spent 70 nights homeless in that same time period. $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 50 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 According to the 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in-Time Count, which is an annual count of all homeless peoples in the county on a single night, there were 1,844 people experiencing homelessness in the County on the night of the count in January 2019.1 Of those experiencing homelessness, 73.2% were White, non-Hispanic, 11% were Black or African American, 5.3% were American Indian or Alaska Natives, 3.5% were Pacific Islander, and 2% were Asian. There were also 21.3% who were Hispanic. There are 193 homeless individuals who are unsheltered. According to the State of Utah’s 2019 Strategic Plan on Homelessness, which quotes from the 2018 Point-in-Time Count (PIT), one in three individuals experiencing homelessness in Utah is severely mentally ill, and one in four have a substance use disorder. Specific service gaps for the homeless were identified through stakeholder meetings as follows: o Affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, and emergency beds o Mental health services and substance use disorder treatment o Case management o Prevention, diversion and outreach services o Data systems that capture more of the full story o Available transportation Affordable Housing Median incomes in Salt Lake City have increased by 52.6% between 2000 and 2018, representing one of the fastest income growth rates in the nation. However, median home values have increased by 89.8% over the same time period and contract rents have increased by 81.8%, thereby increasing the gap between wages and housing costs. 39.5% of Salt Lake City renter households and 19.7% of homeowner households are cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their monthly income on housing costs. Over 18.9% of renter households spend over 50% of their monthly income on housing.2 Families who are cost-burdened have limited resources for food, childcare, healthcare, transportation, education, and other basic needs. Despite the community wide efforts to increase housing availability and reduce housing costs, 29.9% households are cost-burdened. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently administers Housing Choice vouchers for 3,000 households and has 7,053 total households on all of its waiting lists. Countywide there are 15,981 households on the Housing Connect waiting list. A family on the waiting list can expect to wait 6 years before receiving a Housing Choice voucher.3 A large percentage of those on the waiting list are elderly or have a disability. Rental vacancy rates are at historic lows, further limiting the available stock of housing and pushing prices upwards. Concerns were identified regarding the “gentrification” of neighborhoods and the need to put anti - displacement strategies in place, preserving existing affordable housing stock. Demographics 1 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time report 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2012-2016 CHAS 3 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect 51 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The demographic makeup of Salt Lake City has changed substantially since 2000. While the White, non-Hispanic population has remained relatively flat since 2000, minority groups have increased by over 14,000. White, non-Hispanic has declined from 71% of the population in 2000 to 65% in 2018. Over the past 5 years, an average of 450 refugees have settled in Salt Lake City annually. 16.4 % of Salt City residents are foreign-born creating a need for services for individuals who do not speak English. 12% of the City’s population is over 65 years old. Residents this age are often li ving on limited income and can often have more difficulty finding maintaining their homes. This can often lead to the elderly population moving into care facilities or assisted living communities. If care facilities are cheaper outside of the City then elderly residents may end up leaving to other cities in search of lower living costs. There are 20,504 people in Salt Lake City with a disability. 37% of those reporting one or more disabilities are over 65 years old and 21% are over 75 years old. The most c ommon disability for those over the age of 75 is ambulatory difficulty, which is defined as having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, followed by hearing and independent difficulty. About 21% of the City’s population is under the age of 18. Th e largest age group is under 5 years old with over 31% of the City’s children reportedly falling in that range. Salt Lake City has a child dependency ratio4 of 30.0. 14.7% of Salt Lake City’s children (under 18 years) 5 live below the poverty level as def ined by the poverty thresholds determined by the U.S. Government using the Consumer Price Index. The 2019 Utah Intergenerational Welfare Reform Commission Annual Report reaffirms that children growing up in poverty experience challenges to healthy developm ent both in the short and long term, demonstrating impairments in cognitive, behavioral, and social development. The younger the child is when his or her family is impoverished the greater the likelihood for poor outcomes.6 55.8% of Salt Lake City School District students qualify to receive free school lunch.7 Families qualify for free lunch if they earn 130% or below the federal poverty level, about $33,500 or less per year for a family of four. Many of these households are considered food insecure. The 2019 Utah Intergenerational Welfare Reform Commission Annual Report indicates that there are 135,940 children experiencing food insecurity in Utah and in past reports has stated that these children are ill more frequently, struggle academically, are less li kely to graduate from high school and enroll in college; and less likely to earn enough income to feed their families when they are adults. In 2017 there were 152,479 children in Utah under age 6 who needed care, but there were only 41,144 slots available in childcare programs.8 The main reasons families are not able to get adequate childcare is cost (31%) and “lack of open slots” (27%).9 4 A measure derived by dividing the population under 18 years by the 18 to 64 years population and multiplying by 100 5 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates 6 Utah State Department of Workforce Services, Utah Intergenerational Welfare Reform Commission Annual Report, 2019 7 Salt Lake City School District, Fall Low Income Report, 2017 8 ChildCare Aware of America. 2017 State Child Care Facts in the State of: Utah. Retrieved from http://usa.childcareaware.org/ wp - content/uploads /2017207/UT_Facts.pdf 9 Schochet, Leila. “The Child Care Crisis Is Keeping Women Out of the Workforce” Center for American Progress, https://www. americanprogress.org/issues/early -childhood/reports/2019/03/28/467488/child-care-crisis-keeping-women -workforce/. Authors analysis of National Center for Education Statistics, “2016 National Household Education Survey: Early Childhood Program Participation Survey” 52 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Behavioral Health Needs In 2018, Salt Lake City’s Downtown area reported in the highest age -adjusted drug deaths in the state at 72.2 deaths per 100,000 population, which is much higher than the state average ratio of 22.4. The Rose Park and Glendale areas also report higher ratios of 33.3 and 30.4 respectively. Of the 15 neighborhoods in Utah experiencing the highest a ge-adjusted drug deaths, Salt Lake City has three of them.10 A recent study concluded that 1 in 5 Utah adults experience poor mental health and that over half of the adults with mental illness did not receive mental health treatment or counseling. Another study concluded that Utah ranked 48th in a state-by-state ranking indicating that Utah is amongst the worst states in the nation when handling mental illnesses based on 15 measures used to create the rankings. The ranking indicates higher prevalence of m ental illness and lower rates of access to care.11 This is an improvement from 2018, when Utah ranked 51st . Economic and Social Service Needs 15.8% of Salt Lake City’s adults (18 years and over) live below the poverty level.12 A recent report indicated that 39,487 adults experiencing intergenerational poverty are employed but unable to meet the needs of their families.13 Families experiencing intergenerational poverty need to be connected to resources that assist them with employment and job training.14 Job training needs were identified as part of the stakeholder meetings and are a critical component of increasing self-sufficiency for individuals. The United States Department of Agriculture defines food insecure families as those households that, at times during the year, are uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they have insufficient money or other resources for food. Based on information provided by Utahns Against Hunger, August 2018, 12.5% of households struggle to buy enough food for themselves and their households. According to Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap 2018, 12.2% of households in Salt Lake County are food insecure, with 15.4% of children food inse cure in the County. The 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimate performed by the United States Census Bureau reported that there were 9,249 households in Salt Lake City that reported no internet access. This represents almost 12% of the City’s households. Internet access has been shown to increase student performance for students and to improve the placement rates for unemployed persons seeking employment. The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency has established 12 project areas, 9 of which ar e currently collecting tax increment. These project areas have been established for a variety of reasons, including the elimination of blight, development of affordable housing, economic development opportunities, and public works improvements. Geographica lly, these project areas cover a large portion of the 10 Utah Department of Health, Public Health Indicator Based Information System: Poisoning: Drug Deaths by Utah Small Area, 2014 - 2018, https://ibis.health.utah.gov/ibisph -view/indicator/complete_profile/PoiDth.html 11 Mental Health America, Ranking States, https://www.mhanational.org/issues/ranking-states 12 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2018, 5-Year Estimates 13 International Welfare Reform Commission, Utah’s Eighth Annual Report on Intergenerational Poverty, Welfare Dependency and the Use of Public Assistance, 2019 14 Utah State Department of Workforce Services, Utah Intergenerational Reform Commission Annual Report, 2019 53 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 lowest-income areas of the City. A significant amount of tax increment is generated by these project areas, reaching nearly $34 million in 2018, affording the opportunity to leverage HUD funding with ta x increment in the future. Public Improvements Salt Lake City will utilize an $87 million General Obligation (GO) Bond to limit the cost to City residents while still addressing street reconstruction. Using a GO Bond will allow the City to utilize its AAA bond rating (highest available) to provide road reconstruction in a more affordable and responsible way. These funds will only be used for street reconstruction and not street maintenance, which will be funded by sales tax dollars. Salt Lake City increased its sales tax by.5% in 2018. This sales tax increase, also known as Funding Our Future, will support several critical need areas within the City, including Street maintenance. In addition, Salt Lake City Transportation received a .25% County Sales Tax funding stream which will enable Transportation Division to address some of the critical infrastructure and connectivity needs within the city. It’s estimated that the annual household transportation cost within the City is $12,524 o r about 20% of household income.15 The City may consider increasing the quality of commuting by enhancing bus stops and light rail stations and trains to encourage use of public transportation. This would result in household savings in transportation costs and cleaner air within the City. NA-10 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT – 91.205(a, b, c) SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEEDS Affordable housing needs in Salt Lake City are significant and have been increasing over the past several years. A primary reason is that constructi on costs have been increasing at a far greater rate than wages and thereby placing a greater cost-burden on households. An extremely low vacancy rate of 3.8% in rentals is further exacerbating this problem. The problem is especially severe for those househ olds making less than 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). A summary of housing needs and conditions is as follows: Between 2000 and 2018, the cost of housing significantly increased for both renters and homeowners . Incomes for both renters and homeowners have increased, but at substantially lower rates as shown in Figure NA-10.1. o The median contract rent increased by 81.8%, but renter incomes only increased by 48.7%; in 2018 the median household income for renter -occupied units was $36,997. o Home values increased by 89.8%, but homeowner incomes only increased by 59.4%. In 2018, the median household income for owner-occupied units was $83,750.16 FIGURE NA-10.1 HOUSING COST INCREASES VS. INCOME INCREASES SINCE 2000 15 Center for Neighborhood Technology , Housing + Transportation Index , https://htaindex.cnt.org/ 16 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 54 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Affordability Index, which is a calculation of the median home value divided by the median household income, has increased from 4.2 in 2000 to 5.1 in 2018. This is yet another indication that income increases have not kept pace with the increasing hom e values. The homeownership rate decreased from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018. In 2000, rental units comprised 48.8% of occupied housing units. In 2018, that percentage increased to 51.6%.17 Therefore, the increasing number of rental units could partially account for the decreasing rate of homeownership. With increasing housing costs, residents may be hesitant to buy homes and are opting to rent despite increasing rental costs. Many households in Salt Lake City struggle to make their monthly payments and to find affordable rental housing. Of the 39,000 renter households within Salt Lake City, 39.5% are cost-burdened meaning there are about 15,500 renter households who experience difficulty paying their monthly rent. There are also approximately 7,100 homeowners who are cost -burdened and have difficulty meeting their mortgage obligations. Due to the shortage of units affordable to extremely low -income households (<30% AMI), residents who fall into this category are usually forced to rent housing they cannot afford. Very low -income (<50% AMI) households with high housing costs lack resources for basic essentials – most critically food and healthcare. Some residents who fall into this category are forced to live in substandard, unhealthy, unsafe, or overcrowded housing. In some cases, the lack of affordable housing can lead to homelessness for some residents. Since 2000, Salt Lake City has continued to see population growth with roughly 13,95 8 new residents and approximately 9,253 new households. That coupled with high housing costs has reduced the supply of units and increased costs. DEMOGRAPHICS 17 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census & 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2000 2018 Median Contract Rent Renter Incomes Home Values Homeowner Incomes 55 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Table NA-10.1 shows the total population, number of households, and median income as reported b y the 2000 and 2010 Censuses. It also shows those same demographics from the most recent American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2014-2018. The percentage of change between 2000 and 2018 has been calculated and included in the table. TABLE NA-10.1 DEMOGRAPHICS: 2000, 2010, AND 2018 2000 Census 2010 Census 2018 ACS % Change 2000 to 2018 Population 181,743 186,440 195,701 7.68% Households 71,461 74,513 80,714 12.95% Median Income $36,944 $44,223 $56,370 52.58% Source: 2000 & 2010 Census, 2014-2018 ACS, ZPFI Since 2000, Salt Lake City has seen slight increases in population. Median income has grown significantly. More growth has occurred between 2010 and 2018 (9,261 persons total or an average of 1,158 persons per year). However, when considering recent population estimates, it is not unreasonable to assume that the population within the City has surpassed 200,000 since the 2018 ACS.18 Interestingly, the White, non -Hispanic category has seen a net decrease of 373 people since 2000, while minorit y groups have increased by 14,331 persons. Figure NA-10.2 shows how this growth has changed the population composition within Salt Lake City since 2000. In 2000, minorities made up just over 29% of the population. That number increased to 34.6% in 2018. FIGURE NA-10.2 RACE AND ETHNICITY SHARE OF TOTAL POPULATION Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates As shown in Figure NA-10.3, approximately 38.9% of the City’s population falls in the 20-39 age range. This concentration of young-adults/adults differs from the common demographic makeup of the rest of Salt Lake County where this age range is not as highly represented. The 20-29 age range is particularly concentrated in Salt Lake City where the 20-24 and 25-29 age ranges make up over 20% of the residents. As shown in Figure NA-10.4, the County reports that young adults fitting those same age ranges account for 15.4% of the population. This difference is likely due to the university student population concentrated in Salt Lake City. 18 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division , Annual Estimates of the Residential Population July 1, 2018 128,377 122,325 128,004 53,366 62,163 67,697 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 2000 Census 2010 Census 2018 ACS White, non-Hispanic All Minority 56 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE NA-10.3 SALT LAKE CITY AGE STRUCTURE Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates FIGURE NA-10.4 SALT LAKE COUNTY AGE STRUCTURE 15%10%5%5%10%15% Under 5 Years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 years and over % Male % Female 57 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Table NA-10.2 shows the number and types of households by HUD-Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI). TABLE NA-10.2 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HAMFI 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI 80%-100% HAMFI > 100% HAMFI Total Households 13,805 11,475 12,995 7,115 30,045 Small Family Households 3,465 3,375 4,315 2,415 13,880 Large Family Households 1,020 1,270 1,055 745 1,735 Household contains at least one person 62-74 years of age 2,385 1,490 1,905 1,020 5,390 Household contains at least one- person age 75 or older 1,455 1,375 1,240 545 1,570 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger 2,335 2,170 2,045 925 3,945 Source: 2012-2016 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) HOUSING NEEDS SUMMARY Table NA-10.3 shows the number of households with housing problems by tenure and HAMFI. TABLE NA-10.3 HOUSING PROBLEMS 1: HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONE OF THE LISTED NEEDS 15%10%5%5%10%15% Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 years and over % Female % Male 58 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total Substandard Housing - lacking complete plumbing/kitchen facilities 155 105 35 4 299 60 15 15 4 94 Severely Overcrowded - with >1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 240 185 70 15 510 15 30 10 - 55 Overcrowded - with 1.01- 1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) 575 485 530 250 1,840 110 195 115 60 480 Housing cost-burden greater than 50% of income (and none of the above problems) 5,970 1,230 205 - 7,405 1,150 875 375 120 2,520 Housing cost-burden greater than 30% - 50% of income (and none of the above problems) 1,470 4,125 2,160 210 7,965 505 900 1,440 740 3,585 Zero/negative income (and none of the above problems) 1,505 - - - 1,505 195 - - - 195 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities ; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%. Table NA-10.4 displays the number of households which have no housing problems, one or more housing problems, and negative income by tenure and HAMFI. TABLE NA-10.4 HOUSING PROBLEMS 2: HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONE SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEM Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total Having 1 or more of 4 housing problems 6,925 2,005 510 480 9,920 1,335 1,115 840 925 4,215 Having none of four housing problems 2,935 5,860 6,995 2,960 18,750 910 2,500 4,645 3,695 11,750 Household has negative income, but none of the other housing problems 1,505 - - - 1,505 195 - - - 195 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50% Table NA-10.5 shows cost-burdened households by household type, tenure, and HAMFI. Figure NA-10.5 shows how the current number of households compare to what was reported in the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan. TABLE NA-10.5 COST-BURDEN > 30% 59 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Owner Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Total Small Related 2,385 2,125 655 5,165 560 530 765 1,855 Large Related 825 505 185 1,515 140 405 155 700 Elderly 1,460 615 235 2,310 725 620 430 1,775 Other 3,590 2,760 1,390 7,740 400 385 480 1,265 Total 8,260 6,005 2,465 16,730 1,825 1,940 1,830 5,595 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS Table NA-10.5 shows that 22,325 households that are under 80% of HAMFI are cost -burdened to the extent that they are paying 30% or more of their income for housing costs. Of these 22,325 households, 16,730 are renter households while 5,595 are homeowner; therefore, nea rly 75% of households with greater than a 30% cost-burden are renting. Figure NA-10.5 shows a comparison of how the number of households which are cost -burdened has changed since the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. It shows an increase in renter households u nder 50% of HAMFI and a decrease in renter households in the 50 to 80% threshold. While the recent construction market appears to be serving the needs of 50 to 80% fairly well, it has not met the needs of those under 50% of HAMFI. The unmet needs of those under 50% are increasing. FIGURE NA-10.5 COST-BURDEN > 30% IN 2011 AND 2016 Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS Table NA-10.6 shows that 10,700 households that are under 80% of HAMFI are severely cost -burdened because they are paying 50% or more of their income on housing costs. Renters account for 8,130 of these households while 2,570 are homeowners. Severely cost -burdened households are at the greatest risk for homelessness. TABLE NA-10.6 COST-BURDEN > 50% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Nu m b e r o f H o u s e h o l d s Renter 60 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Owner Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Total Small Related 1,915 475 30 2,420 510 225 95 830 Large Related 620 30 - 650 105 125 20 250 Elderly 1,045 175 45 1,265 410 335 145 890 Other 3,020 650 125 3,795 280 205 115 600 Total 6,600 1,330 200 8,130 1,305 890 375 2,570 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS Figure NA-10.6 shows a comparison of how the number of households which are severely cost -burdened has changed since the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. It shows an increase in households under 30% of HAMFI and a decrease in cost-burdened households in the 30 to 80% thresh old. FIGURE NA-10.6 COST-BURDEN > 50% IN 2011 AND 2016 Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI Nu m b e r o f H o u s e h o l d s Renter 61 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Figure NA-10.7 shows a map of the cost-burdened renters within the City by census tract. It shows that most of the cost-burdened renters are located just west of I-15 with more than 50% of renters in the tracts in that area reporting that rental costs constitute more th an 30% of their household income. There are also two tracts to the west of Liberty Park and in the 300 West area from 900 South to 2100 South which report more than 50% of renters as cost-burdened. FIGURE NA-10.7 PERCENT OF RENTERS IN CENSUS TRACTS THAT ARE COST-BURDENED 62 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates Figure NA-10.8 shows a map of the cost-burdened owners with a mortgage within the City by census tract. The percentage of cost-burdened owners is much lower – less than 20%. However, like renters, most of the cost-burdened homeowners are located just west of I-15. These tracts show that 20-30% of owner’s costs are more than 30% of household income. FIGURE NA-10.8 PERCENT OF OWNERS WITH A MORTGAGE IN CENSUS TRACTS THAT ARE COST-BURDENED 63 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates 64 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Figure NA-10.9 shows the market value of single-family residential units in Salt Lake City. Interestingly, areas with the lowest home values have the highest cost -burden. FIGURE NA-10.9 MARKET VALUE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN SALT LAKE CITY Source: Salt Lake County Assessor’s Database 2019 Table NA-10.7 shows the number of households considered to be crowded by having more than one person per room. Crowded households are displayed by HAMFI and household type . There are 2,873 households with crowding in Salt L ake City according to 2012-2016 CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data. TABLE NA-10.7 CROWDING Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total Single Family Households 685 535 575 205 2,000 110 170 100 30 410 Multiple, Unrelated Family Households 95 60 4 40 199 15 44 25 30 114 65 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total Other, Non - Family Households 40 70 25 15 150 - - - - - Total 820 665 604 260 2,349 125 214 125 60 524 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS Table NA-10.8 shows the number of households with children present by having more than one child under the age of 6. There are 7,475 households in Salt Lake City according to 2012-2016 CHAS data. TABLE NA-10.8 HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN Renter Owner 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total 0-30% HAMFI 30%- 50% HAMFI 50%- 80% HAMFI 80%- 100% HAMFI Total Households with Children Present 1,955 1,505 1,280 415 5,155 380 665 765 510 2,320 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS DESCRIBE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF SINGLE PERSON HOUSEHO LDS IN NEED OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE: The needs of single-person households located within Salt Lake City can be difficult to calculate due to the large student population attending the University of Utah. In many cases , these students may have little income, and be living in poverty, while they are enrolled in classes. This can inflate the number of single households living in poverty and facing housing challenges. However, this is a temporary situation for most student s as they generally have the ability to grow their incomes after graduation. Of the 78,229 total households (family and nonfamily) in the City, 27,838 were reported as being nonfamily and living alone. According to these numbers, 35.6% of households in Salt Lake City live alone. This is higher than the national average of 34.2%.19 A portion of the 27,838 single-persons households represent young professionals, students, and other individuals that are not in need of housing assistance. The at-risk single person households in need of housing assistance include working residents earning low wages, residents who are unemployed, and residents who are disabled and cannot work. ESTIMATE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF FAMILIES IN NEED OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DATING VIO LENCE, SEXUAL ASSAUL T AND STALKING AND/OR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: 19 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 66 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Utah Domestic Violence Coalition reported that 36 Utahans lost their lives to domestic -violence in 2018 and has also reported 32 deaths as of the end of June 2019. Of these reported fatalities, 19 of these victims in 2018 and 16 of the reported 2019 fatalities have been Salt Lake County residents. 20 In addition, a total of 1,449 men, women, and children were sheltered in the two Uta h domestic violence shelters located in Salt Lake City. Individuals who entered the domestic violence shelter system stayed for an average of 45 days in 2019. There are many barriers for survivors of domestic violence to overcome including securing permanent and stable housing, coping with trauma, accessing support for health and mental healthcare, and addressing the needs of children. Domestic violence resources currently available in Salt Lake County include shelter services, a children’s justice center, survivor’s assistance programs, and sexual assault programs. The Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) is Salt Lake City’s primary resource for survivors of domestic violence seeking out emergency shelter services. Emergency and extended shelter faci lities are available twenty - four hours a day in a 181-bed facility for women and children fleeing unsafe situations. In addition, the YWCA provides transitional housing for women and dependent children for up to 2 years through a partnership with the Salt Lake City Housing Authority. Eligibility prioritizes women who have experienced intimate partner violence within the last year, qualify under the federal definition of homeless, and are eligible for the services through the Housing Authority. During the 2018-2019 program year, the YWCA provided services for 770 women and children for a total of 37,114 days of service. The Rape Recovery Center provides 24-hour crisis intervention, advocacy, emotional support, and referrals to sexual assault victims, their f amilies, and their friends in 150 languages. The center empowers those victimized by sexual violence through advocacy, crisis intervention, and therapy to educate the community about the cause, impact, and prevention of sexual violence. During the 2018-2019 program year, the Rape Recovery Center served about 268 unduplicated clients in the Salt Lake area living below the poverty level. There was a total of 374 total unduplicated clients served in that same year. The Journey of Hope is a Salt Lake County based organization which provides services to at -risk women in Salt Lake City. It provides support to Utah women whose status puts them at -risk for criminal charges and provides support through mentoring and case management. It also provides job training to allow at-risk women to enter the workforce as educated and productive employees. These services are available to women who are survivors of abuse, experiencing homelessness, survivors of trafficking, struggling with substance abuse or mental illness, and w omen who are on parole or probation. The Journey of Hope assisted just over 400 women in the 2018 - 2019 program year. Persons with Disabilities Estimates from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey indicate that 21,828 residents, or 10.9% of the City’s population, is living with a disability. The City’s elderly population is most affected by disability with 37.6% of residents over the age of 65 experiencing at least one disability. The data also shows that 51.2% the citizens of the City who are 75 years ol d and older are experiencing at least one disability. The most common disability among the elderly is ambulatory difficulty which is defined by the Census Bureau as “having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.”21 Salt Lake City looks to work collaboratively with partners that provide services for persons with disabilities, which include but are not limited to, Alliance House, Disability Law Center, Aging Services, ASSIST, and others. 20 Utah Domestic Violence Coalition , UTAH Domestic Violence Related Deaths in 2018 & 2019. 21 “How Disability Data are Collected from the American Community Survey,” United States Census Bureau, Revised October 17, 2017, Retrieved August 7, 2019, https://www.census.gov/topics/health/disability/guidance/data-collection -acs.html 67 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 22 WHAT ARE THE MOST CO MMON HOUSING PROBLEMS? HUD has defined housing problems and severe housing problems as follows: Housing Problems o Household lacks complete kitchen facilities o Household lacks complete plumbing facilities o Household is overcrowded, with more than one person per room o Household is cost-burdened by paying 30% or more of monthly income on housing costs Severe Housing Problems o Household lacks complete kitchen facilities and/or complete plumbing facilities, in addition to one of the following: Household is severely overcrowded, with more than 1.5 persons per room Household is severely cost-burdened by paying 50% or more of monthly income on housing costs All rental properties in Salt Lake City require a business license. Landlords are required to maintain minimum standard condition of housing, as per Salt Lake City’s Existing Residential Cod e. The purpose of the Residential Housing Code is to provide for the health, safety, comfort, con venience, and aesthetics of the City. The most common housing problem in Salt Lake City is cost -burden of monthly housing costs. Cost burden is a problem among all income groups but is most prevalent among low -income renters. According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 45% of renters are cost-burdened, spending at least 30% of their monthly income on housing costs. Among homeowners, 25.5% of owners with a m ortgage and 10% of owners without a mortgage were cost -burdened. FIGURE NA-10.10 PERCENT OF INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING BY TENURE Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates ARE ANY POPULATIONS/HOUSEHOLD TYPES MORE AFFECTED THAN OTHERS BY THESE PROBLEMS? 13% 41% 23% 22% 26% 48% 18% 8% 72% 18% 5% 5% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% Less than 15% 15 to 29.9% 30 to 49.9% 50% or more Renters Owners with a Mortgage Owners without a Mortgage 68 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Housing problems, including cost-burden, are more likely to affect households earning 0 to 50% of the area median income (AMI). Households within this income range struggle to find safe, decent, and affordable housing and often spend a high proportion of their income on housing. These households have limited resources for other basic essentials, including food, healthcare, childcare, and transportation. Housing problems also significantly impact households in the 50 to 80% AMI income groups, elderly households, and single- parent households. The high rate of housing cost -burden and other housing problems points to the need to expand affordable housing opportunities throughout Salt Lake City. Healthcare costs have been rising and are projected to do so in the near term.23 This can add significantly to the burden of rising housing costs and reduce a household’s ability to save for retirement, obtain additional education, access good childcare, and even impact such basic needs as good nutrition. DESCRIBE THE CHARACTE RISTICS AND NEEDS OF LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN (ESPECIALLY EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME) WHO ARE CURRENTLY HOUSED BUT THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS. ALSO D ISCUSS THE NEEDS OF FORMERLY HOMELESS FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE RECEIVING RAPID RE -HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND ARE NEARING THE TERMINATION OF THAT ASSISTANCE. In Salt Lake County, the largest group experiencing homelessness is adult -only households. The number of households with both adults and children experiencing ho melessness in 2018 decreased by about 36% between 2014 and 2019. The number of unaccompanied youths experiencing homelessness decreased by about 85% over the same time period.24 Those transitioning out of assistance need continued counseling and often financial support to not revert back into homelessness. When they can, area service providers try to offer this support. However, the stakeholder meetings conducted as part of this Consolidated Plan revealed that caseloads are too high and that services are spread too thin due to a lack of funds and a shortage of a highly -skilled workforce. This results in lack of sufficient support for counseling, job training and guidance, and assistance with behavioral health issues. It is a critical time period for tho se transitioning out of assistance and homelessness, when support services are most essential in order to embark upon, and maintain, self -sufficiency. This Plan recognizes a critical need in this area and proposes strategies to strengthen support for vulne rable populations at critical junctures in their lifetimes. IF A JURISDICTION PROVIDES ESTIMATES OF THE AT-RISK POPULATION(S), IT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF THE AT -RISK GROUP AND THE METHODOLOGY USED TO GENERATE THE ESTIMATES. According to HUD, at risk of homelessness25 is defined as an individual or family who: i. Has an annual income below 30% of median family income for the area; AND 23 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 24 2014 and 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time 25 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, At Risk of Homelessness, https://files. hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AtRiskofHomelessnessDefinition_Criteria.pdf 69 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 ii. Does not have sufficient resources or support networks immediately available to prev ent them from moving to an emergency shelter or another place defined in Category 1 of the “homeless” definition; 26 AND iii. Meets ONE of the following conditions: A. Has moved because of economic reasons two or more times during the 60 days immediately preceding the application for assistance; OR B. Is living in the home of another because of economic hardship; OR C. Has been notified that their right to occupy their current housing or living situation will be terminated within 21 days after the date of application for assistance; OR D. Lives in a hotel or motel and the cost is not paid for by charitable organizations or by Federal, State, or local government programs for low -income individuals; OR E. Lives in an SRO or efficiency apartment unit in which there reside more than two persons or lives in a larger housing unit in which there reside more than one and a half persons per room; OR F. Is exiting a publicly funded institutio n or system of care; OR G. Otherwise lives in housing that has characteristics associated with instability and an increased risk of homelessness, as identified in the recipient’s approved consolidated plan SPECIFY PARTICULAR H OUSING CHARACTERISTICS THAT HAV E BEEN LINKED WITH INSTABILITY AND AN INCREASED RISK OF HOMELESSNESS The greatest predictor of homelessness risk is severe cost-burden on households. Households paying more than 50% of their income towards housing costs or having incomes at or below 50% of AMI are at the greatest risk to experience homelessness. DISCUSSION The most prevalent housing problem is cost -burden – especially for those who make less than 50% of AMI. While Salt Lake City has seen a significant shift to smaller apartment units (i.e., less bedrooms), there is still significant need for all housing types for the severely cost -burdened. Residents who fall into this category are usually forced to secure housing they cannot afford. Very low -income families burdened with high housing costs lack resources for basic essentials – most critically food and healthcare. Some residents who fall into this category are forced to share housing, causing overcrowded housing conditions. The lack of affordable housing can lead to homelessness for our most vulnerable residents. The City, through efforts of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, the City’s Redevelopment Agency, and community partners, aim to address housing problems by preserving existing affordable housing, increasing the supply of affordable housing, and improving substandard housing with a focus in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty. These efforts will effectively reduce the incidence of overcrowding and cost -burden. NA-15 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: HOUSING PROBLEMS – 91.205 (b)(2) INTRODUCTION 26 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Homeless Definition, http://ctagroup.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/10/Homeless-Definition-and-documentation.pdf 70 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 This section provides an assessment of housing problems (not including severe housing problems which are discussed in the following section) by race and ethnicity as compared to level of need as a whole. HUD defines housing problems as the following: Household lacks complete kitchen facilities Household lacks complete plumbing facilities Household is overcrowded, with more than one person per room Household is cost-burdened by paying 30% or more of monthly income on ho using costs According to HUD, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10 percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole. Tables NA-15.1- NA-15.8 show the number of households with housing problems by income, race, and ethnicity. Each table provides data for a different income level. TABLE NA-15.1 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 0%-30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 5,860 1,580 885 70% Black/African American 470 10 70 85% Asian 610 49 295 64% American Indian, Alaska Native 240 50 - 83% Pacific Islander 270 - - 100% Hispanic 2,630 180 310 84% Total 10,235 1,870 1,700 74% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%. While a significant number of households in this income category have one -or more housing problems, this percentage is fairly consistent with the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. TABLE NA-15.2 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 0%-30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2012 AND 2016 2011 2016 Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Share of households with one or more of the four housing problems 9,560 76% 10,235 74% Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE NA-15.3 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 30%-50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME 71 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 4,980 2,475 - 67% Black/African American 335 19 - 95% Asian 340 190 - 64% American Indian, Alaska Native 20 30 - 40% Pacific Islander 135 50 - 73% Hispanic 2,230 525 - 81% Total 8,140 3,335 - 71% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities ; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%. TABLE NA-15.4 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 30%-50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2012 AND 2016 2011 2016 Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Share of households with one or more of the four housing problems 6,720 70% 8,140 71% Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE NA-15.5 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 50%-80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 3,245 5,970 - 35% Black/African American 100 114 - 47% Asian 160 360 - 31% American Indian, Alaska Native 130 80 - 62% Pacific Islander 95 80 - 54% Hispanic 1,140 1,225 - 48% Total 4,950 8,045 - 38% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%. TABLE NA-15.6 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 50%-80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2012 AND 2016 2011 2016 72 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Share of households with one or more of the four housing problems 5,345 37% 4,950 38% Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE NA-15.7 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 80%-100% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 865 4,515 - 16% Black/African American 10 110 - 8% Asian 34 145 - 19% American Indian, Alaska Native - 20 - 0% Pacific Islander 60 60 - 50% Hispanic 415 785 - 35% Total 1,405 5,710 - 20% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities ; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%. TABLE NA-15.8 HOUSING PROBLEMS: 80%-100% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2011 AND 2016 2011 2016 Number of Households Percentage Number of Households Percentage Share of households with one or more of the four housing problems 2,095 24% 1,405 20% Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS DISCUSSION The 2012-2016 CHAS data shown in Tables NA 15.1 to NA 15.8 were conducted with a sample size of 45,390 households to analyze housing problems. Out of the total sample 24,730 households or 54.5% had one or more of the four housing problems. An additional 1,700 households or 3.7% showed no/negative income but none of the other housing problems were exhibited. Below is a summary of the analysis of housing problems by income level for each of the income level groups. Note that the sample size for certain ethnic gr oups is extremely small, thereby producing unreliable results. 0-30% AMI: The 0-30% AMI group included 13,805 households with extremely low -income. This group made up 30.4% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had o ne or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islanders showed the highest disproportionate need with 100% reporting at least one housing problem. 30-50% AMI: The 30-50% AMI group included 11,475 households with low -income. This group made up 25.3% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Black/African American households showed the highest 73 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 disproportionate need with 95% reporting at least one housing problem and the Hispanic house holds also showed a high disproportionate need with 81% reporting at least one housing problem. 50-80% AMI: The 50-80% AMI group included 12,995 households with moderate income. This group made up 28.6% of the total households sampled. Of all households i n this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, American Indian/Alaska Native households showed the highest disproportionate need with 62% reporting at least one housing problem. 80-100% AMI: The 80-100% AMI group included 7,115 households with middle income. This group made up 15.7% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islander households showed the highest disproportionate need with 50% reporting at least one housing problem. NA-20 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: SEVE RE HOUSING PROBLEMS – 91.205 (b)(2) INTRODUCTION This section provides an assessment of severe housing problems by race and ethnicity as compared to level of need as a whole. HUD defines severe housing problems as a household that lacks complete kitchen facilities, lacks complete plumbing facilities, in addition to one of the following: Household is severely overcrowded, with more than 1.5 persons per room Household is severely cost-burdened by paying 50% or more of monthly income on housing costs Tables NA-20.1 – 20.4 display the number of households with severe housing problems by income, race and ethnicity. Each table provides data for a different income level. TABLE NA-20.1 SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 0%-30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 4,565 2,870 885 55% Black/African American 405 75 70 74% Asian 545 115 295 57% American Indian, Alaska Native 160 130 - 55% Pacific Islander 265 4 - 99% Hispanic 2,160 650 310 69% Total 8,260 3,845 1,700 60% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50% TABLE NA-20.2 SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 30%-50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 1,755 5,705 - 24% 74 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems Black/African American 195 160 - 55% Asian 165 365 - 31% American Indian, Alaska Native - 50 - 0% Pacific Islander 35 150 - 19% Hispanic 940 1,815 - 34% Total 3,120 8,360 - 27% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50% TABLE NA-20.3 SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 50%-80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 715 8,500 - 8% Black/African American 14 200 - 7% Asian 50 470 - 10% American Indian, Alaska Native 60 155 - 28% Pacific Islander 55 120 - 31% Hispanic 455 1,915 - 19% Total 1,350 11,640 - 10% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50% TABLE NA-20.4 SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 80%-100% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME Has one or more of four housing problems* Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Share of household with one or more of the four housing problems White 200 5,185 - 4% Black/African American 10 110 - 8% Asian 15 165 - 8% American Indian, Alaska Native - 20 - 0% Pacific Islander 60 60 - 50% Hispanic 180 1,020 - 15% Total 465 6,655 - 7% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5 persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50% DISCUSSION 75 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The 2012-2016 CHAS data shown in Tables NA 20.1 to NA 20.4 were conducted with a sample size of 45,395 households to analyze severe housing needs. Out of the total sample 13,195 households or 29.1% had one or more of the four severe housing problems. An additional 1,700 households or 3.7% showed no/negative income but none of the other housing problems were exhibited. Below is a summary of the analysis of housing problems by income level for each of the income level groups. Note that the sample size for certain ethnic groups is extremely small, thereby producing unreliable results. 0-30% AMI: The 0-30% AMI group included 13,805 households with extremely low -income. This group made up 30.4% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islanders showed the highest disproportionate need with 99% reporting at least one severe housing problem. 30-50% AMI: The 30-50% AMI group included 11,480 households with low -income. This group made up 25.3% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Hispanic households showed the highest disproportionate need with 55% reporting at least one severe housing problem. 50-80% AMI: The 50-80% AMI group included 12,990 households with moderate income. Thi s group made up 28.6% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islander households showed the highest disproportionate need with 31% reporting at least one severe housing problem. 80-100% AMI: The 80-100% AMI group included 7,120 households with middle income. This group made up 15.7% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islander households showed the highest disproportionate need with 50% reporting at least one housing problem. NA-25 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: HOUSING COST BURDENS – 91.205(b)(2) INTRODUCTION This section provides an assessment of housing cost burdens by race and ethnicity as compared to level of need as a whole. According to HUD, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10 percentage points highe r than the percentage of persons in category as a whole. Table 25.1 shows the number of cost-burdened households by race and ethnicity. Data is broken down by no cost-burden (less than 30%), cost-burden (30-50%), severe cost-burden (50% or more) and no/negative income. TABLE NA-25.1 HOUSING COST-BURDEN BY RACE AND ETHNICITY 76 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 0 - 30% 30% - 50% >50% No/Negative Income (Not Computed) Number Share of Total Number Share of Total Number Share of Total White 39,765 71% 8,745 16% 6,665 12% 930 Black/African American 545 36% 300 20% 590 39% 70 Asian 2,120 59% 480 13% 680 19% 300 American Indian, Alaska Native 355 52% 170 25% 160 23% - Pacific Islander 430 49% 200 23% 245 28% - Hispanic 5,490 48% 3,160 27% 2,545 22% 310 Total 49,360 65% 13,290 18% 11,045 15% 1,750 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS DISCUSSION Similar to the 2015-2019 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan, cost-burden continues to be the most prevalent housing problem in Salt Lake City. Of the 75,445 households included in the sample, 32.26% of all households are shown as being cost-burdened. Black/African American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic households all have a higher prevalence of cost-burden with over 50% of all households that report spending 30% or more on housing costs. Renter-occupied households also show a significant cost -burden with 39.5% of all renter occupied units reportedly are cost-burdened. NA-30 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: DISCUSSION – 91.205 (b)(2) ARE THERE ANY INCOME CATEGORIES IN WHICH A RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUP HAS DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED THAN THE NEEDS OF THAT INCOME CATEGORY AS A WHOLE? Based on 2012-2016 CHAS data, the following racial and ethnic groups experience disproportionately greater housing needs: Black/African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino Salt Lake City has evaluated disproportionate needs across racial and ethnic populations and household compositions. In general, low -income households, which are disproportionately com prised of racial and ethnic minorities, are more likely to experience housing needs. Figure NA-30.1 demonstrates the variation in per capita income across racial and ethnic groups in Salt Lake City. FIGURE NA-30.1 PER CAPITA INCOME BY RACE AND ETHNICITY 77 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates Census data indicates that 13.9% of the City’s White, non-Hispanic population is living below the poverty level, while 28.1% of Hispanics and 32.7% of Black/African American populations are living below the poverty level. Racial and ethnic children are more likely to live in poverty than their White , non-Hispanic counterparts, as many of the City’s racial and ethnic minorities are children. The media n age of the City’s White, non -Hispanic population is 35.2 while the median age of the Hispanic population is 26.3.27 IF THEY HAVE NEEDS NOT IDENTIFIED ABOVE, WHAT ARE THOSE NEEDS? Considerable efforts are needed to improve housing opportunity to address t he needs of minorities, with focus on minorities living in concentrated areas of poverty. Minorities face housing impediments on several fronts, including few rental opportunities for large families, a high risk of predatory lending practices, and a high r isk for housing discrimination. Gaps in access to housing opportunity and economic opportunity are likely to widen as the City’s demographics continue to shift. Therefore, Salt Lake City is taking a comprehensive approach to improve housing opportunity and is in the process of developing and implementing a multifaceted strategy to address needs. The City is collaborating with Salt Lake County, local municipalities and community partners to define and address regional issues and priorities. Through outreach , partnership building, workforce training, early childhood education, and other efforts, the City will expand capacity within neighborhoods to take a comprehensive and proactive role in redevelopment efforts. Efforts will focus on two areas: 1) expanding opportunity in concentrated areas of poverty and RDA project investment areas; and 2) diversifying the housing stock throughout the City to expand affordable housing opportunities. ARE ANY OF THOSE RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUPS LOCATED IN SPECIFIC AREAS OR NEIGHBORHOODS IN YOUR COMMUNITY? Figure 30.2 demonstrates that the vast majority of the City’s minority population lives west of Interstate 15 with many of the block groups located in west -side neighborhoods having a minority share above 50%. The City’s overall population growth between 1990 and 2010 can be attributed to minority populations, with minorities increasing in share from 17.4% in 1990 to 29.4% in 2000 and then to 33.3% in 2010. The rate of increase in population share has slowed recently, as the min ority population only increased by 0.8% between 27 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. $40,992 $17,195 $13,709 $29,621 $15,777 $13,585 $18,339 $16,729 $34,711 $- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Alone American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Alone Other Race Alone Two or More Races Hispanic or Latino Jurisdiction as a Whole Per Capita Income 78 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 2010 and 2017 to 34.1%. Hispanics/Latinos represent the largest minority group in the City, increasing in share from 9.7% in 1990 to 22.3% in 2010 and decreasing slightly to 21.3% in 2017. In comparing the east and west sides of the City, there are significant differences in socioeconomic status with a gap in opportunity for those generally living on the west side. Both minority renter and minority owner - occupied households are more concentrated west of I-15. Minority populations are more likely than White, non-Hispanic to be low-income renter households, as Citywide minority homeownership rates are 11 percentage points lower than rates for White, non -Hispanic residents. However, the minority share of owner- occupied units is significantly higher west of I-15. A majority of the housing stock affordable to low and moderate-income residents is located on the west side. FIGURE NA- 30.2 PERCENT OF B LOCK GROUP POPULATION THAT IS MINORITY, SALT LAKE CITY 2017 Sou rce: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates NA-35 PUBLIC HOUSING – 91.205(b) INTRODUCTION 79 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) is responsible for managing the public housing inventory, developing new affordable housing units and administering the Housing Choice voucher programs for the City. The Authority strives to provide affordabl e housing opportunities throughout the community by developing new or rehabilitating existing housing that is safe, decent, and affordable – a place where a person’s income level or background cannot be identified by the neighborhood in which they live. In addition to the development and rehabilitation of units, the HASLC also manages several properties emphasizing safe, decent, and affordable housing that provides an enjoyable living environment that is free from discrimination, efficient to operate, and remains an asset to the community. The HASLC maintains a strong financial portfolio to ensure flexibility, sustainability, and continued access to affordable tax credits, foundations, and grant resources. As an administrator of the City’s Housing Choice voucher programs, the Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental assistance to low -income families (50% of area median income and below). This program provides rental subsidies to 3,000 low -income families, disabled, elderly, and chronically homeless cl ients. Other programs under the Housing Choice umbrella include: Housing Choice Moderate Rehabilitation; Housing Choice New Construction; Project Based Vouchers; Multifamily Project Based Vouchers; Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers; Housing Oppo rtunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS; and Shelter plus Care Vouchers. Under these other Housing Choice programs, the HASLC provided rental subsidies to additional qualified program participants. TABLE NA-35.1 PUBLIC HOUSING TOTALS IN USE* Program Type Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled # of units/vouchers in use 99 369 2,536 279 1,704 133 59 361 Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019 TABLE NA-35.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDENTS 80 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Program Type Mod-Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Vouchers Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program # Homeless at admission 18 23 381 190 82 108 1 # of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 16 285 628 118 454 54 2 # of Disabled Families 71 162 1,286 221 937 123 5 # of Families requesting accessibility features NA NA NA NA NA NA NA # of HIV/AIDS program participants NA NA NA NA NA NA NA # of DV victims NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019 TABLE NA-35.3 RACE OF RESIDENTS Race Program Type Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Vouchers Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled White 78 296 1,571 233 920 119 45 254 Black/African American 16 24 295 17 227 15 5 31 Asian 1 25 57 6 45 0 0 6 American Indian, Alaska Native 4 4 53 20 22 5 2 4 Pacific Islander 0 4 33 3 29 1 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019 TABLE NA-35.4 ETHNICITY OF RESIDENTS Ethnicity Program Type Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Vouchers Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled Hispanic 11 59 385 32 218 7 27 101 Not Hispanic 88 310 1,684 247 1,019 126 32 260 Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019 SECTION 504 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: DESCRIBE T HE NEEDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING TENANTS AND APPLICANTS ON THE WAITING LIST FOR ACCESSIBLE UNITS: 81 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Administratively the Housing Authority makes every effort to comply with Section 504 requireme nts on a continual basis. Their self -evaluation resulted in the following summary of measures, administrative actions, motivations, procedures, or adoption of policies in order to comply. Placing notices of compliance in the legal section of local newspap ers. Maintaining a general mailing list of organizations concerned with and offering assistance to people with disabilities. Providing assistance to people with disabilities in filling out forms and applications, obtaining translators when needed, and havi ng staff available to read or sign if required. Providing the Equal Housing Opportunity (EHO) statement on housing materials and Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) statement on employment applications and job announcements. Conducting 504 compliance orientations for new employees and ongoing training for all staff. Maintaining a list of all Reasonable Accommodation requests. Assigning the Compliance Manager as the official person to coordinate and deal with 504 issues. Adopting of grievance procedures by their Board of Commissioners. WHAT ARE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF FAMILIES ON THE WAITING LIST FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AND HOUSING CHOICE (SECTION 8) T ENANT -BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE? The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City reports that there are currently 1,865 households on the Housing Choice waiting list and 5,188 on the Public Housing waiting list. There is a total of 7,053 households on both lists. Of the households on both lists, 27% are elderly, and 53% have a disability. There are 14% Hispanic, 78% are White, non-Hispanic, 13% are African American, 3% are American Indian or Alaska Native, 3% are Asian, 3% are Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 4% are Multi -Racial, and 1% are unknown. The waiting list is currently not open. An applicant for voucher funding can expect to be on the wait list for approximately 1 to 6 years. Housing Connect (Salt Lake County Housing Authority) also provided information on the waiting lists for public housing and Housing Choice TBRA. Within Salt Lake County, there are 15,981 households on the waiting list for public housing. Of those households, 2% have a disability, 11% are elderly, 22% have children, and 51% are single. The average annual income is $15,399 and 77% are extremely low -income. The average wait is about 2 years, but it varies depending on bedroom size. In Salt Lake County, there are 447 households on the waiting list for Housing Choice. Of these households, 93 have a disability, 21 are elderly, 233 are single, and 110 have children. The average annual income is $12,954 and 90% are extremely low -income. The average wait time is 6 years. It should be noted that within the County’s data, households on the waiting list are required to self -report a disability and this may have resulted in a lower percentage of d isabled households in the data. BASED ON THE INFORMATION ABOVE AND ANY O THER INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE JURISDICTION, WHAT ARE THE MOST IMMEDIAT E NEEDS OF RESIDENTS OF PUBLIC HOUSING AND HOUSING CHOICE V OUCHER HOLDERS? 82 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Residents need affordable housing in locations that are near public transportation, quality education, healthcare, and other service providers. Those with the ability to work need services to increase overall self - sufficiency. HOW DO THESE NEEDS COMPARE TO THE HOUSING NEEDS OF THE PO PULATION AT LARGE? Salt Lake City is experiencing a high demand for multi -family rental units as evidenced by the overall low vacancy rates in the City. This demand has resulted in an increase in the number of new market rate units being constructed throughout the City. The need for quality affordable housing scattered throughout the City has become greater as the overall demand for rental housing has grown. Because land and development are more expensive on the east side of Salt Lake City, there are fewer naturally occurring affordable housing units on the east side. This leads to additional subsidy and creating affordable housing financing needing to be deployed for developments occurring on the east side of the city. Even with significant public investmen t to subsidize and stimulate the production of affordable housing, the supply is not meeting demand. DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City will continue to work with the Housing Connect and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City to leverage and strategically target resources to address increasing housing needs. The number of households on waiting lists is significant, especially for the elderly and those with disabilities. Further, the short supply of rental units and low vacancy rates has exacerbated the need for a dditional affordable rental housing. NA-40 HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT – 91.205(c) INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Cares (COC) executive board and its prioritization committee to ensure the Continuum of Cares priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocations. Also, the three local ESG funders meet regularly to coordinate ESG and COC activities to make sure services are not being over or under funded and services being funded mee t the community’s needs and goals. The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer HMIS. All service agencies in the region and the rest of the State are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Currently, HMIS is supported by Client Track. Salt Lake Continuum of Care conducts an annual Point -in-Time count at the end of January to count sheltered (emergency shelter and transitional housing) and unsheltered homeless individuals. Unsheltered homeless individuals are counted by canvassing volunteers. The volunteers use the VI -SPDAT to interview and try to connect unsheltered homeless individuals into services. A number of critical reports define n ot only the issues facing the homeless but likely solutions to these issues. The most recent report is The State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness September 2019. Priorities of this Plan include: Fewer days spent in emergency beds or shelters Fewer persons returning to homelessness Fewer first-time individuals who experience homelessness More persons successfully retaining housing 83 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 This study also found that there are service gaps in the following areas: Affordable housing, permanent supportive housi ng, and emergency beds Mental health services and substance abuse disorder treatment Case management Prevention, diversion and outreach services Data systems that capture more of the full story Available transportation Essential facts about homelessness in Utah include: As of January 2018, Utah had an estimated 2,876 experiencing homelessness on any given day, as reported by Continuums of Care to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Of that total, 287 were family households, 239 were Veterans, 191 were unaccompanied young adults (aged 18-24), and 306 were individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. Per State of Utah Annual Report on homelessness, there were 14,289 persons that experienced homelessness state wide in 2019. 9,387 were located in Salt Lake County. Public school data reported to the U.S. Department of Education during the 2016 -2017 school year shows that an estimated 15,094 public school students experienced homelessness over the course of the year. Of that total, 636 students were unsheltered, 994 were in shelters, 459 were in hotels/motels, and 13,005 were doubled up. According to the 2019 Point-in-Time Count, Salt Lake County has 1,844 homeless individuals, representing nearly 66% of homelessness in the State. 193 of these individuals are unsheltered. .09% of Utah’s population is homeless 29% of our homeless live in family groups of parents and children Youth between the ages of 18 and 24 comprise 7% of our homeless population Domestic violence impacts 22.1% of our homeless population 11% of the homeless population in Utah is experiencing “chronic” homelessness 55% of our homeless population is White TABLE NA-40.1 HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # of incoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Unsheltered Sheltered Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) - 526 N/A N/A N/A N/A 84 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # of incoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Unsheltered Sheltered Persons in Households with Only Children - 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Persons in Households with Only Adults 193 1,122 N/A N/A N/A N/A Chronically Homeless Individuals 86 281 N/A N/A N/A N/A Chronically Homeless Families - 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A Veterans 12 145 N/A N/A N/A N/A Unaccompanied Youth 19 95 N/A N/A N/A N/A Persons with HIV 1 19 N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time TABLE NA-40.2 HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPARISON WITH 2014 AND 2019 - UNSHELTERED Population 2014 2019 Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 5 - Persons in Households with Only Children - - Persons in Households with Only Adults 105 193 Chronically Homeless Individuals 25 86 Veterans 15 12 Unaccompanied Youth - 19 Persons with HIV - 1 Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time TABLE NA-40.3 HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPARISON WITH 2014 AND 2019 - SHELTERED Population 2014 2019 Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 813 526 Persons in Households with Only Children 2 3 Persons in Households with Only Adults 1,178 1,122 Chronically Homeless Individuals 265 281 Veterans 260 145 Unaccompanied Youth 616 95 Persons with HIV 49 13 Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time Homelessness has declined significantly since 2014 for unaccompanied youth. The Salt Lake City & Salt Lake County have made efforts to target this population and these efforts are showin g positive results. TABLE NA-40.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS 85 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Population Unsheltered Sheltered Race White 151 1,198 Black or African American 12 191 Asian 2 35 American Indian or Alaska Native 13 84 Pacific Islander 2 63 Multiple Races 13 80 Ethnicity Hispanic 34 392 Not Hispanic 159 1,259 Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time ESTIMATE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF FAMILIES IN NEED OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND THE FAMILIES OF VETERANS. Salt Lake County has 150 families (526 individuals) and 157 veterans experiencing homelessness, with no known veteran families. The primary tool to help these families is rapid re -housing to reduce the time families experience homelessness to as short as possible. Families traditionally experience homelessness for short periods of time following cataclysmic events. Continuing the rapid re -housing program, coupled with homeless prevention efforts, will help families while they experience these cata strophic times. DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS BY RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUP. The majority of individuals experiencing homelessness are White, non -Hispanic (1,349). The second largest group is Hispanic (426), followed by Black/African America n (203) and American Indian/Alaska Native (97). This is similar to the makeup of Salt Lake City where White, non -Hispanic accounts for 73.7% of the population, Hispanic (21.3%), Black/African American (2.0%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (1.3%). DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF UNSHELTERE D AND SHELTERED HOME LESSNESS Salt Lake City has 1,651individuals who are sheltered and 193 unsheltered homeless individuals. The Salt Lake homeless services community does a good job sheltering homeless individuals. However, it must continue to work to move people out of emergency shelters and transitional housing and into permanent stable housing. NA-45 NON-HOMELESS SPECIAL NEE DS ASSESSMENT – 91.205(b, d) INTRODUCTION This section analyzes the needs of non -homeless special populations to include the elderly, persons with disabilities (including physical, mental, developmental, as well as persons with chronic substance abuse disorders), persons living with HIV/AIDS, survivors of dating/domestic violence, single -parent households, large family households, and immigrants. TABLE NA-45.1 HIV AND HOPWA REPORT: 2013 - 2017 86 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Current HOPWA formula use: 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cumulative cases of AIDS reported 1,995 2,009 2,037 2,080 2,094 Area incidence of AIDS 34 24 33 32 22 Rate per population 3.2% 2.2% 2.8% 2.7% 1.8% Current HIV Surveillance data: Area Prevalence (PLWH per 100,000 population) 168.5 168.6 160.6 162.2 162.6 Number of new HIV cases reported last year 67 95 74 101 83 Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control HIV Surveillance TABLE NA-45.2 HIV HOUSING NEEDS Type of HOPWA Assistance Estimates of Unmet Need Tenant Based Rental Assistance 57 Short-Term Rent, Mortgage, and Utility 36 Facility Based Housing (Permanent, Short -Term, or Transitional 0 Source: HOPWA CAPER and HOPWA Beneficiary Verification Worksheet DESCRIBE THE CHARACT ERISTICS OF SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION IN YOUR COMMUNITY: A description of special needs populations in Salt Lake City is as follows: Elderly Salt Lake City has continued to be home to a younger populace as compared to the population of the rest of the United States. The Census Bureau tracks a metric called the “Old -Age Dependency Ratio” which measures the number of people aged 65 and older to every 100 work ing age people. In this case, working age is defined as anyone between the ages of 20 and 64. Table NA-45.3 compares the City’s ratio to those in the county, state, and national levels and shows that Salt Lake City has a higher share of working age residen ts compared to those who are 65 years and older. TABLE NA-45.3 2018 OLD-AGE (65+) DEPENDENCY RATIO Senior Dependency Ratio Salt Lake City 15.8 Salt Lake County 16.6 Utah 17.7 United States 24.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates Another factor that will need to be considered is the expected growth in the elderly population. The elderly population has increased by just over 20,000 people between the 2010 Census and the 2014-2018 ACS 5-year estimates. As shown in Table NA-45.4, the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute currently projects the elderly population to increase at a substantially greater rate moving forward. They project that the elderly population will account for 14.5% of Salt Lake County’s population by 2030 with t he trend continuing until almost one in every five residents will be considered elderly. This expected increase will have large impacts on housing demand, transportation, healthcare services and other supportive services. TABLE NA-45.4 87 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 2018-2050 POPULATION PROJECTION, SALT LAKE COUNTY SENIOR (65+) Year Total Population Population 65+ 65+ Share 2018 ACS (most recent) 1,120,805 114,930 10.25% 2030 1,306,414 190,082 14.55% 2050 1,531,282 294,113 19.21% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Demographics and Housing Estimates, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute FIGURE NA- 45.1 PERCENT OF B LOCK GROUP RESIDENTS THAT ARE SENIORS, SALT LAKE CITY - 2017 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates Persons with Disabilities Estimates from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey indicate that 10.9% of the City’s population is living with a disability. It is also estimated that 21,828 citizens have a disability. The City’s elderly population is most affected by disability with 37.6% experiencing at least one disability. The data also shows that 51.2% the citizens of the City who are 75 years old and older are experiencing at least one disability. The most common disability among the elderly is ambulatory diffic ulty which is defined by the Census Bureau as “having serious difficulty 88 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 walking or climbing stairs.”28 A complete breakdown of the percentage of citizens aged 65 years old and older who are experiencing these disabilities is shown in Figure NA-45.2. FIGURE NA-45.2 SALT LAKE CITY DISABILITY PREVALENCE, 65+ Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Disability Characteristics The younger population experiences a much smaller percentage of disability. For residents ranging in age from 18 to 64 years old, only 8.8% of the population has a disability. The most common disability is cognitive difficulty, which effects 4.4% of this age group. Second is ambulatory difficulty effecting 3.4% and independent living difficulty effecting 2.7%. Figure NA-45.3 shows the complete list of disabilities and percentages. FIGURE NA-45.3 SALT LAKE CITY DISABILITY PREVALENCE, 18-64 YEAR-OLDS Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Disability Characteristics Female-Headed Households with Children In Salt Lake City, there are 6,743 households headed by single females, with no husband present. Of that group, 3,822 of these households have children under the age of 18 years old present in the home.29 These households frequently face many uniqu e and significant challenges that other populations do not currently face. According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Salt Lake City’s family poverty rate is 10.6%, while the single-mother household poverty rate is 40.7%. 28 “How Disability Data are Collected from the American Community Survey,” United States Census Bureau, Revised October 17, 2017, Retrieved August 7, 2019, https://www.census.gov/topics/health/d isability/guidance/data-collection -acs.html 29 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 7.2% 6.7% 9.0% 14.7% 17.6% 21.9% 0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0% Self-Care Difficulty Vision Difficulty Cognitive Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Hearing Difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty 1.2% 1.4% 1.8% 2.7% 3.4% 4.4% 0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%5.0% Self-Care Difficulty Hearing Difficulty Vision Difficulty Independent Living Difficulty Ambulatory Difficulty Cognitive Difficulty 89 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Single female-headed households with children often lack the resources necessary to find adequate childcare or job training services. This in turn impacts the woman’s ability to provide stable housing and care for her children. If a mother is able to find work and childcare, the rising cost of childcare further diminishes single mothers’ paychecks. There were 151,580 children in Utah under the age of 6 who needed care in 2019, but there were only 41,092 available slots reported in childcare programs. 30 This means there are at least two additional children in need of childcare for every child who is currently in a childcare program. In 2016, the National Household Survey reported that the main reason families had difficulty finding childcare was cost (31%) with t he second most common reason being “lack of open slots” (27%). Immigrants and Refugees Salt Lake City’s thriving economy, including strong wage growth, educational opportunities, and availability of services attracts immigrants from around the world. Since opening in 1994, the International Rescue Committee’s Salt Lake City branch has resettled over 11,000 individuals from roughly 26 countries, with an average of about 450 individuals settled each year in the Salt Lake City over the past 5 years. Besid es refugee resettlement, Salt Lake City attracts immigrants for job opportunities, university studies, and family connections. According to the 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 32,709 (16.7%) of Salt Lake City’s 195,701 residents are foreign born. Victims of Dating and Domestic Violence The Utah Domestic Violence Coalition reported that 36 Utahans lost their lives to domestic violence in 2018 and has also reported 19 deaths as of the end of June 2019. Of these reported fatalities, 19 of these victims in 201 8 and 10 of the reported 2019 fatalities have been Salt Lake County residents. 31 In addition, a total of 1,449 men, women, and children were sheltered in the two Utah domestic violence shelters located in Salt Lake City. Individuals who entered the domest ic violence shelter system stayed for an average of 45 days in 2019. There are many barriers for survivors of domestic violence to overcome including securing permanent and stable housing, coping with trauma, accessing support for health and mental healthc are, and addressing the needs of children. Large-Family Households A large family is defined as having five or more members. According to the Salt Lake City Fair Housing Equity Assessment, the number of large-family households receiving public assistance in Salt Lake City in 2019 totaled 9,991. The vast majority of large-family households receiving public assistance reside on the City’s west side in zip codes 84104 and 84116, with over 55% of the large-family households receiving public assistance residing in these zip codes.32 Persons with HIV/AIDS A report published by the Utah Department of Health indicates that 3,169 persons were living with HIV/AIDS in the State of Utah in December 2016. For nearly a decade, the number of people newly diagnosed with HIV in Utah declined steadily until 2011. After Utah experienced a large decrease in the number of cases during 2010, HIV infections have increased each year. During 2017, 83 people in the metropolitan statistical area were diagnosed with HIV. The cumulative number of AIDS cases reached 2,094, and the diagnosis rate was 1.8% per 100,000 population.33 30 ChildCare Aware of America. 2019 State Child Care Facts in the State of: Utah. 31 Utah Domestic Violence Coalition , UTAH Domestic Violence Related Deaths in 2018 & 2019. 32 Utah Department of Workforce Services: Research & Analysis 33 Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control HIV Surveillance 90 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Medical and supportive resources for persons with HIV/AIDS are concentrated in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Therefore, the majority of Utah’s population w ith HIV/AIDS comes to Salt Lake City for medical treatment and services. This places a burden on local resource delivery systems aimed at providing stable housing, supportive services, and case management for these individuals. WHAT ARE THE HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICE NEEDS OF THESE POPULATIONS AND HOW ARE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED? The housing and supportive service needs of special populations was determined through focus groups with public service stakeholders, an evaluation of data derived from organ izations who work with these populations, and other local and national data sources. Needs are as follows: Elderly The housing and supportive service needs of Salt Lake City’s elderly population will increase as the baby boomer generation continues to age. Elderly residents have a greater need for housing maintenance and rehabilitation assistance than the population as a whole. The areas of the City where elderly populations are concentrated, the East Bench and upper Avenues neighborhoods, contain an older and mostly single-family housing stock. There is a need to retrofit, update, and provide accessibility modifications for housing units occupied by elderly residents to allow them the opportunity to age in place. In addition to housing assistance, elderly populations are in need of in -home medical care, food services, and transportation services. Persons with Disabilities Affordable, stable, long-term housing is the most critical need for persons with mental, physical, and/or development disabilities, as w ell as persons suffering from addiction. Persons with mental, physical, developmental, and substance abuse disabilities are more likely to experience housing instability and homelessness than the population as a whole. According to the State of Utah’s 2019 Strategic Plan on Homelessness, which quotes from the 2018 Point -in-Time Count (PIT), one in three individuals experiencing homelessness in Utah is severely mentally ill, and one in four have a substance abuse disorder. Additionally, individuals who experience homelessness are less likely to access healthcare systems and to suffer from preventable diseases. A large portion of the City’s disabled population deals with ambulatory difficulties. Approximately 44.8% of residents reporting a disability indicat e that at least one of their disabilities is ambulatory. Just under one in every 20 residents in Salt Lake City has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.34 Accommodations for those experiencing these difficulties will necessitate more accessible un its with easier access to buildings. Female-Headed Households with Children More long-term stable housing is needed to address the needs of low -income female-headed households with children, as well as job training, employment placement services, and chil dcare opportunities There were 151,580 children in Utah under the age of 6 who needed care in 2019, but there were only 41,092 available slots reported in childcare programs.35 This means there are at least two additional children in need of childcare for every child who is currently in a childcare program. In 2016, the National Household Survey reported that the main reason families across the nation had difficulty finding childcare was cost (31%) with the second most common reason being “lack of open slots” (27%). This, combined with the State’s childcare discrepancy, indicates that there is an increased need for more affordable and available childcare services to allow female-headed households to provide for their children. 34 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates 35 ChildCare Aware of America. 2019 State Child Care Facts in the State of: Utah. 91 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Immigrants and Refugees Immigrants and refugees come with many needs, including affordable housing, cultural orientation services, healthcare, legal assistance, and transportation. There are many barriers to affordable housing for this group, including language, lack of credit hi story, and lack of income/employment history. As such, immigrants and refugees are at high risk for homelessness and housing discrimination. Services needed for immigrants and refugees include a path to self -sufficiency. Such services may include language training, employment assistance, and assistance with locating housing and transportation. Resettlement programs, currently provided through the Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah, Catholic Community Services and International Rescu e Committee take a comprehensive approach to the long-term outcomes of resettlement. Survivors of Dating/Domestic Violence Because survivors of domestic violence often reside with their abuser, they are at high risk for homelessness. Many survivors resist leaving abusive situations because they do not have the income, training, or resources to acquire their own housing. Emergency and transitional housing is especially important to this group in order to provide them with a place to escape the cycle of abus e while they work to attain self -sufficiency. In addition, many survivors are in need of supportive services to address physical and mental trauma. Large-Family Households The City has seen a decrease in housing stock for large families. In 2013, 8.4% of all rentals had 4 or more bedrooms; this number declined to 6.7% by 2018. The percentage of 2-3 bedroom rental units increased indicating that smaller housing units are being built. Persons with HIV/AIDS Achieving housing stability is often difficult for persons with HIV/AIDS because of problems with substance abuse and physical or mental health issues. These challenges can also make it difficult for these persons to obtain and maintain employment that provides a stable source of income for housing. Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division is committed to ensuring HOPWA project sponsors work together in a coordinated, collaborative, and flexible manner to effectively serve HOPWA program participants. This includes supporting efforts for HOPWA-assisted households to access and maintain housing, medical treatment, and sources of income. Project sponsors network with each other to alleviate identified barriers and promote an environment that ensures HOPWA clients are in treatment and ha ve access to safe, decent, and affordable housing. Clients with mental and substance abuse disorders can receive case management services through Utah AIDS Foundation to obtain further access to services. DISCUSS THE SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF T HE POPULATION WITH HIV/AIDS AND THEIR FAMILIES WITHIN THE ELIGIBLE METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA: Utah has seen a declining rate of individuals diagnosed with HIV who have ever been classified as stage 3 (AIDS). In 2012, there were 3.9 new cases of HIV/AIDS per 100,000 population according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control HIV Surveillance. According to this same source, in 2017 the rate was 1.8 per 100,000 population. In 2012, 110 individuals were diagnosed with HIV, according to the Utah Department of Health .36 In 2017, 83 new HIV cases were reported.37 36 Utah Department of Health, Utah HIV Fact Sheet, 2013. 37 United States Centers for Diseases Control, HIV Surveillance Report 2017 92 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Although Utah has seen slightly declining rates in new cases of HIV, there is significant racial disparity in the prevalence of new HIV cases. In 2015, 26.7% of new HIV cases were for Hispanic or Latino indivi duals who only account for 13.7% of the population in Utah. FIGURE NA-45.4 ESTIMATED ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS DIAGNOSED WITH HIV BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, UTAH 2015 Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Utah – 2015 State Health Profiles https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/stateprofiles/pdf/Utah_profile.pdf FIGURE NA-45.5 PERCENT OF NEW CASES WITH AIDS AT HIV DIAGNOSIS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, UTAH 2017 Source: Utah Department of Health, Utah HIV Factsheethttp://health.utah.gov/epi/diseases/hivaids/surveillance/HIV_2017_report.pdf The number of individuals newly diagnosed with HIV already progressed to AIDS at the time of diagnosis was significantly skewed to Hispanic and Asian individuals, as demonstrated in Table NA 45.5. It should be noted 24% 0% 50% 8% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Hispanic American Indian/ Alaska Native Asian Black Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander White Multi-Race Unknown White, 58.6% Hispanic/Latino, 26.7% Black/African American, 6.9% Asian, 6% American Indian/Alaska Native, 1.7% 93 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 that there were only 6 total new HIV diagnoses of Asian individuals in 2017, so 50% indicates 3 individuals were also diagnosed at Stage 3 (AIDS) at their initial diagnosis. Meanwhile, there were 38 individuals of Hispanic ethnicity who were diagnosed with HIV in 2017 and 9 of those individuals were also diagnosed with Stage 3 (AIDS). NA-50 NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DE VELOPMENT NEEDS – 91.215(f) DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES: Police and Fire Because of significant contributions to police and fire infrastructure during the past decade, public safety is not currently considered a top priority community development need. During that time period, Salt Lake City constructed a $125 million Public Safety Building which is shared with the City’s Fire Department and which is meeting the need for future growth -related police officers. Public safety also receives impact fees which will help to offset any future capital facility needs associated with new growth in the City. HOW WERE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED? As part of the Consolidated Plan process, an Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) met three times to discuss needs from the perspective of various department within the City. DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S NEED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: Parks and Public Lands In order to m aintain the current level of service, Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division plans to invest approximately $38.7 million between 2017 and 2027. These costs should be offset by impact fees related to new growth. The Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division participated in developing an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years (2012 -2021) to continue the current level of service and accommodate the service needs of projected growth. Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division currently owns 2,378 park acres with an estimated land value of $210,134,805 and improvements value of $96,351,475. These assets are used to provide the current level of service which equates to an investment of $1,594 per capita. Transportation In order to maintain the current level of service Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions plan to invest approximately $303,200,600 in capital facilities over the next ten years, $41,805,960 of which is growth related, and therefore eligible to be paid for with impact fees. The remaining amount is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels, and therefore is not impact fee eligible. The remaining amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. The City has issued an $87 million bond to pay for street improvements. HOW WERE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED? As part of the Consolidated Plan process, an Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) met three times to discuss needs from the perspective of various department within the City. 94 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions participated in the development of an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) in 2016, reflecting growth from 2017 to 2027, and that identified the capital facilities the City will need to build within the 10-year timeframe to continue the current level of service and accommodate the service needs of projected growth. The bulk of the transportation improvements will be paid for with an $87 million bond issued by Salt Lake City, supplemented by impact fees. Therefore, street improvements are not considered to be a top priority of this Plan. DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S NEED FO R PUBLIC SERVICES: The major need for public services is for affordable housing and for homeless services. Related to these two overarching needs are transportation needs for low -income households, economic opportunities such as job training to increase self-sufficiency and supportive services for individuals with disabilities and behavioral health challenges. A summary of needs for the homeless and non -homeless populations is as follows: Homeless Public Service Needs More mental health treatment services, including case management where current caseloads are considerably too high Supportive housing for the mentally ill Job training Permanent supportive services, co -located with other supportive services Tenant-based rental assistance Homelessness prevent ion services Access to transportation services (for job seeking, medical visits, etc.) Life skills training Substance abuse and opioids counseling Non-Homeless Public Service Needs Housing Expand housing opportunities in high opportunity areas Encourage a diversity of housing product in neighborhoods to allow for lifecycle housing Preserve affordable housing stock Development of affordable housing units near transit stations Supportive housing for people with HIV and AIDS Transportation Access to childca re near transportation hubs and employment centers Transit passes at low or no cost Bus stop improvements, especially suited for inclement weather, and focused on transit hubs Sidewalk improvements and ADA improvements to increase mobility Partner with UT A and other entities to improve transit access and enhancements in target areas Economic Development Support employment centers in target areas where connections to transit, transportation corridors, and access to services can minimize transportation costs, influence affordability, improve air quality, and create vibrant, sustainable neighborhoods Micro loans Job training Façade improvements for small business 95 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Health, Elderly and Disabilities Need for supportive services for seniors and persons with disabilities Improve accessibility of existing housing stock for persons with disabilities Improved transit opportunities for people in wheelchairs including ADA -accessible wheelchairs Review signal timing at intersections to ensure adequate time for senio rs or those with disabilities More mental health treatment services, including case management where current caseloads are considerably too high Opioids, substance abuse assistance Mental health assistance Dental and medical assistance Supportive services for persons with HIV and AIDS Senior assistance with supportive services, including transportation Parks and Public Lands Improve pub lic safety in existing parks Park and green space enhancements Management Coordination with State programs to not overl ap or fund the same thing Asset mapping of all existing programs, agencies, funding sources, etc. Review Good Landlord and other obstacles to obtaining housing (i.e., credit history, felonies, etc.) Use innovative technologies such as Apps to better align supply and demand for housing HOW WERE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED? Salt Lake City’s homeless needs are determined through evaluation of the annual Point -in-Time Study as well as the recently released State Strategic Plan on Homelessness. In addition, the pub lic participation portion of this process featured a series of three meetings with stakeholder agencies, including Shelter the Homeless, Volunteers of America-Utah, Salt Lake Valley Habitat for Humanity, and Housing Connect formerly known as the Salt Lake County Housing Authority. This process was a critical factor in determining homeless needs. Finally, a survey was prepared which received over 4,000 responses. The survey results indicated that homeless and affordable housing issues should be the top priority for the City. The non-homeless public service needs of Salt Lake City’s low to moderate -income residents and special populations were determined through a Stakeholder Advisory Committee that included representatives from a broad view of public service providers (discuss ed in more detail in the Citizen Participation section of this Plan), as well as a review of local and national data. 96 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS The Market Analysis provides a clear picture of the environment in which Salt Lake City will administer its federal grant programs over the course of the Consolidated Plan. In conjunction with the Needs Assessment, the Market Analysis provides the basis for the Strategic Plan and the programs and projects to be administered. 97 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 98 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 MA-05 OVERVIEW Salt Lake City has transitioned over the years to become one of the most diverse, sustainable, and innovative economies in the nation. With unsurpassed outdoor recreation opportunities, internationally acclaimed technology and research facilities, well -respected and competitive higher education institutions, industry - leading healthcare facilities, a modern light rail and streetcar transit system, an expanding international airport, a growing population, an educated workforce, a multilingual population and d iverse cultural opportunities, the City is attracting nationally -recognized businesses. This provides an opportunity to build strong neighborhoods with vibrant businesses, along with diverse housing opportunities. However, with this strong economy, housi ng prices have increased faster than household incomes, making it more and more difficult for low -income families to find affordable housing. Between 2000 and 2018, rental rates have increased by 81.8%; rental rates have continued to rise to historically h igh rates, with a 32% increase between 2010 and 2018. Decreases in rental affordability, combined with extremely low vacancy rates, have created a very tight rental market, leading to increased difficulty for low -income households to obtain affordable housing. Individuals displaced from housing will have a more difficult time, given market conditions, of finding suitable substitute housing. There is a need for preservation of existing housing stock and strategies to combat displacement in housing for vulnerable populations. Such strategies will benefit low -income populations and stabilize neighborhoods. Some key points of the market analysis include: Housing Market Conditions Between 2000 and 2018 the cost of housing significantly increased for both rent ers and homeowners. The median rental rates increased by 81.8% and home values increased by 89.8%. During the same time period, the median household income only increased by 52.6%. Since incomes did not keep up with increases in housing costs, it has becom e more difficult for residents to buy a home as evidenced by a declining homeownership rate (from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018).38 An analysis of Salt Lake City’s homebuyer market demonstrates a reasonable range of low -income households will continue to qualify for mortgage financing assistance: US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2000-2018: o The median home values increased 89.8%, from $152,400 to $289,200 o The median household income increased by 52.6%, from $36,944 in 2000 to $56,370 HUD, HOME Income Guidelines for 2020, Salt Lake County, 80% AMI for a family of 4: $70,300 US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2014-2018: o The number of households earning $50,000 - $74,999: 13,991 households, 17.9% of total population o The average monthly owner costs with a mortgage, $1,534 UtahRealEstate.com, May 2020, number of Salt Lake City listings between $100,000 -$299,999: 554 Salt Lake County rental rates are at an all -time high, showing a 51% increase between 2010 and 2018. 38 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates 99 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 In 2018, the apartment vacancy rate in Salt Lake City was the lowest rate in Salt Lake County at 2.7% and the Downtown area had an even lower rate at 1.6%.39 A tight rental market and rising rents create a barrier for households in need of affordable housing. An analysis of housing gaps has determined that Salt Lake City has a shortage of 6,177 rental units affordable to renters earning less than $20,000 per year. This is down from a shortage of 8,240 rental units in 2013. Specifically, shortages occur for affordable rental housing for extremely and very low -income households making less than 50% AMI; affordable and accessible housing for persons with disabilities; affordable rental housing for large families; and permanent supportive housing for vulnerable populations such as individuals who are chronically homeless, mentally disabled, or physically disabled. Barriers to Affordable Housing Poor housing conditions can also be a barrier to suitable, affordable housing. HUD defines poor housing conditions as overcrowding, cost -burdened, a lack of complete plumbing, or kitchen facilities. Based on this definition, about 44.8 % of renters and 20.8% of owners live in a unit with at least one condition. 2012-2016 CHAS data also indicates that there are 570 housing units, vacant and occupied, that lack a complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. Barriers to affordable housing development include both market and regulatory factors. These include land costs, construction costs, financing resources, foreclosures, neighborhood market conditions, economic conditions, land use regulations, development a ssessments, permit processing procedures, a lack of zoning incentives and landlord-tenant policies. A contrast of mortgage denials and approvals exists between racial and ethnic populations in Salt Lake County. The mortgage application denial rate for His panics (20%) in Salt Lake City is significantly higher than that of non-Hispanics (13%).40 Transportation costs can be a barrier to affordable housing, especially if transportation costs are significant due to distances traveled and time spent during the commute. Nearly half of workers living in the City travel 15 to 29 minutes for work. Housing Services The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently manages 30 properties including Housing Choice Vouchers, Project Based Vouchers, Mod Rehab Vouchers an d programs for Veterans, homeless, disabled, and elderly persons. These properties offer over 1,600 units of varying sizes. A variety of facilities and services are offered to homeless individuals and families, including emergency shelters, transitional h ousing, safe havens, permanent supportive housing, tenant based rental assistance, outreach and engagement, housing placement, general medical, employment, substance abuse, behavioral health, legal aid, veteran services, public assistance, family crisis, h ygiene, and other miscellaneous services. These services are provided by government agencies, faith -based organizations, service-oriented groups, housing authorities, health service organizations, and others. 39 Cushman Wakefield, Apartment Market Report: Greater Salt Lake Area, 2018 40 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 100 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 In addition to supporting housing and homeless services with federal funding, Salt Lake City Corporation spent $2,554,000 on Homelessness Related Services in fiscal year 2018-19. The funding came from General Fund resources and highlights the City’s commitment to providing support for our most vulnerable citizens. Salt Lake City’s housing and supportive service network addresses the needs of the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with substance addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and public housing residents through a variety of efforts that are designed to be coordinated a case manager and referral format to link residents to services and support opportunities. MA-10 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS – 91.120(a)&(b)(2) INTRODUCTION The Census Bureau estimates in the 2014-2018 Americ an Community Survey that there are 84,784 housing units in the City with 92.3% reportedly occupied; 48.4% of those units are owner -occupied. The number of housing units has increased by 4,060 units from the 80,724 units reported in the 2010 U.S. Census. Th is is an increase of 5%, which is much higher than the national increase of 3.6% in that same period. Salt Lake City is the most populated city in the County and comprises 21.7% of the County’s housing stock. Table MA-10.1 shows a breakdown of the housing inventory located within the City. 1-unit detached structures are the largest property type, accounting for almost half the housing units in Salt Lake City. However, multi - family housing complexes of 20 or more units saw the largest growth since 2013 in terms of percentage and now represents approximately 22% of the properties by housing type. TABLE MA-10.1 ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY NUMBER OF UNITS Property Type 2018 Units % of Total Units 1-unit Detached Structure 40,112 47.3% 1-unit, Attached Structure 2,741 3.2% 2-4 Units 11,785 13.9% 5-19 Units 10,245 12.1% 20 or More Units 19,052 22.5% Mobile Home, Boat, RV, Van. Etc. 849 1.0% Total 84,784 100.00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics TABLE MA-10.2 ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY NUMBER OF UNITS 2018 Unit Size by Tenure Owners Renters Number Percentage Number Percentage No Bedroom 359 0.9% 3,111 7.7% 1 Bedroom 1,833 4.8% 14,370 35.6% 2 or 3 Bedrooms 21,579 57.0% 20,177 50.0% 4 or More Bedrooms 14,098 37.2% 2,702 6.7% Total 37,869 100.00% 40,360 100.00% 101 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units DESCRIBE THE NUMBER AND TARGETING (INCOME LEVEL/TYPE OF FAMILY SERVED) OF UNITS ASSISTED WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PROGRAMS: Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division and community partners utilize federal, state, and local funding to expand housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households, as well as vulnerable and at-risk populations. Sources and financing include low -income housing tax credits, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOPWA, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City’s Redevelopment Agency, the City’s General Fund, Funding Our Future, and Housing Connect. The following funding sources are utilized to target specifi c housing activities: CDBG A portion of Salt Lake City’s CDBG funding is utilized for housing activities, including housing rehabilitation, historic preservation, home repair programs, tenant -based rental assistance, homeownership, and down payment assistance. CDBG funding is targeted to households earning 0 to 80% of AMI. ESG Salt Lake City utilizes ESG funds to provide homelessness prevention assistance to households who would otherwise become homeless and to rapidly re-house persons who are experiencing homelessness. The funds provide for a variety of assistance, including emergency shelter, homeless prevention, short - or medium -term rental assistance, housing placement, and housing stability case management. ESG funding is targeted to extremely low -income individuals and households that are at or below 30% AMI. HOME Salt Lake City utilizes HOME funds to provide a wide range of activities including building, acquiring, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership, as well as providing direct rental assistance to low-income households. HOME funding is targeted to households earning 0 to 80% AMI with rental assistance specifically targeted to a lower AMI. HOPWA Salt Lake City administers the HOPWA program for the Salt Lake Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele Counties. HOPWA funds are utilized to provide the following housing services to HOPWA eligible persons: Housing Information Services Tenant-based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Project-based Rental Assistance (PBRA) Short-term Rent, Mortgage, Utility Assistance (STRMU) Permanent Housing Placement Assistance (PHP) Housing Supportive Services Housing Coordination/Resource Identification HOPWA funding targets extremely low - to low-income individuals diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Local Funds The Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund provides financial assistance to support the development and preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake City. Eligible Activities include ac quisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multi -family rental properties and single-family homeownership. Funding is targeted to households earning up to 80% AMI. 102 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Under Utah Code Title 17C Community Reinvestment Agencies Act, the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency is able to contribute up to 20% of tax increment from each project area to fund affordable housing projects throughout the City. Available funds vary from year-to-year, depending on the amount of tax increment generated in the Agency’s various project areas. In the past 50 years, the Redevelopment Agency has created nearly 7,000 housing units of which nearly half are affordable. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) The Utah Housing Corporation (UHC) Multifamily Finance Department is committed to partnering with developers and investors to utilize State and Federal Tax Credits and bond financing. These resources facilitate the development of new and rehabilitated apartments to provide housing for low-income families, senior citizens, and more. The program increases the availability of rental housing to households earning 60 % or less of the area median income. During the 2019 fiscal year, UHC allocated $8.7 million in annual 9% federal tax credits and $1.3 million in annual 4% federal tax credits. The UHC helped over 4,200 families purchase a home with its down payment assistance program and helped fund affordable housing development that created nearly 1,000 new rental units across Utah. Much of the development of affordable housing development or preservation that occurs in Salt Lake City requires a funding partnership that includes a combination of LIHTC, State funding via the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, and City resources. State Funds The Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund’s (OWHLF) Multi -Family Program provides financial assistance for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of affordable rental households at or below 50 % of AMI, and the median income of all households served through the OWHLF is 43.8% of AMI. During fiscal year 2019, the fund supported construction or rehabilitation of 1,281 units of multi -family housing, as well as 136 single-family units statewide. PROVIDE AN ASSESSMENT OF UNITS EXPECTED TO BE LOST FROM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY FO R ANY REASON, SUCH AS EXPIRATION OF SECT ION 8 CONTRACTS: TABLE MA-10.3 HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITH AT LEAST ONE AFFORDABILITY CONTRACT EXPIRING WITHIN THE NEXT TEN YEARS Project Total Affordable Units Nearest Expiration Art Space II 53 2025 Aspen View 16 2026 Bradley Apartments 6 2024 Calvary Tower 30 2020 Cedar Crest Apartments 12 2023 Country Oaks I 7 2023 Country Oaks II 17 2024 CW Development-Parker 16 2025 Grace Mary Manor 80 2026 Granite Park Condo 9 2021 Harmony Gardens 96 2026 Hidden Oaks II 24 2022 Hidden Oaks IV 36 2021 103 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Project Total Affordable Units Nearest Expiration Hidden Oaks VI 28 2025 Hidden Oaks VII 6 2029 Holladay Hills I 70 2023 Holladay Hills II 60 2024 Huntsman 36 2028 Ivanhoe Apartments 19 2021 Liberty Midtown 65 2023 Lowell Apartments 80 2025 Meredith Apartments 22 2019 Millcreek Meadows 56 2024 New Grand Hotel 80 2020 Ouray Duplex 2 2026 Palladio Apartments 36 2025 Parkway Commons 81 2024 Pauline Downs Apartments 112 2024 Rio Grande Hotel 49 2023 Riverside Cove Apartments 28 2023 Riverview Townhomes 61 2025 Riverwood Cove Apartments 110 2022 Robert A Wiley Apartments 7 2026 Safe Haven I 22 2029 Salt Lake County - Cnsrt 11 2029 Sedona 18 2025 South Salt Lake Crown 4 2026 Aspenview 19 2029 Village Apartments 24 2024 Wandamere Place Apartments 10 2019 Wasatch Commons Crown 5 2029 Source: Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development DOES THE AVAILABILIT Y OF HOUSING UNITS MEET THE NEEDS OF THE POPULATION? According to an apartment market report completed in the summer of 2018, the Salt Lake City area apartment vacancy rate was at 2.7% with the Downtown area reporting a 1.7% vacancy rate.41 With rental inventory nearly completely occupied, it is difficult for households at all AMI levels to find adequate rental ho using, with increased difficulty for households at lower AMIs. Limitations on housing choice are particularly significant for the low-income elderly, who have the highest levels of disability and tend to live in older housing stock. Housing availability for persons with a disability will become increasingly scarce as the baby -boomer cohort increases in age. 41 Cushman Wakefield, Apartment Market Report: Greater Salt Lake Area, 2018 104 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R SPECIFIC TYPES OF HOUSING: Salt Lake City has evaluated the need for specific housing types in consideration of current housi ng needs and future population changes. Currently, specific segments of Salt Lake City’s population are not well -served by the housing market, with gaps in the following types of housing: Affordable rental housing for extremely low -income households Affordable and accessible housing for persons with disabilities Affordable rental housing for large families Permanent supportive housing for vulnerable populations to include individuals who are chronically homeless, mentally disabled, physically disabled and others MA-15 COST OF HOUSING – 91.210(a) INTRODUCTION Between 2000 and 2018, the cost of housing significantly increased for both renters and homeowners. As demonstrated in Table MA-15.1, the median contract rent increased from $516 in 2000 to $938 in 2018, an 81.8% increase. Median home values increased 89.8%, from $152,400 to $289,200. During the same time period, the median household income only increased by 52.6%, from $36,944 in 2000 to $56,370 in 2018. Since incomes have not kept up with increasing h ousing costs, it is more difficult for residents to buy or rent a home. Subsequently, homeownership rates have decreased from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018. TABLE MA-15.1 COST OF HOUSING Base Year: 2000 2010 ACS 2018 ACS Percent Change (2000 - 2018) Median Home Value $152,400 $243,200 $289,200 89.8% Median Contract Rent $516 $712 $938 81.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics TABLE MA-15.2 ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY NUMBER OF UNITS AND RENT COSTS Gross Rent Number of Units Percentage Less than $500 3,769 9.6% $500-999 18,454 47.1% $1,000-1,499 11,598 29.6% $1,500-1,999 4,234 10.8% $2,000 or More 1,128 2.9% Total 39,183 100.00% No cash rent included in the Less than $500 category Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics TABLE MA-15.3 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 105 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Rental Units Units Affordable RHUD: 30% or below 4,775 Affordable VHUD: 50% or below 5,465 Affordable RHUD: 31% - 50% 15,000 Affordable VHUD: 51% - 80% 9,845 Affordable RHUD: 51%-80% 16,700 TOTAL 36,475 TOTAL 15,310 Source: 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE MA-15.4 MONTHLY RENT Market Rent Efficiency (no bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Fair Market Rent $708 $870 $1,075 $1,518 $1,727 High HOME Rent $708 $870 $1,075 $1,364 $1,501 Low HOME Rent $708 $775 $931 $1,075 $1,200 Source: HUD FMR and HOME rents FIGURE MA-15.1 2019 MARKET VALUE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN SALT LAKE CITY Source: Salt Lake County Assessor’s Database 2019 IS THERE SUFFICIENT HOUSING FOR HOUSEHOL DS AT ALL INCOME LEV ELS? 106 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The low supply of affordable housing can be seen when comparing Salt Lake City’s supply of housing at various price points with the number of households who can afford such housing. The lack of affordable housing is particularly prevalent for extremely low -income households. An analysis of housing gaps has determined that Salt Lake City has a shortage of 6,177 rental units affordable to renters earning less than $20,00 0 per year. This indicates that the shortage has decreased by 2,063 since 2013 when the reported shortage was 8,240. Some of these renters are university students who will have future earnings increases, but many are low -income families, persons with disabilities,10 and persons who are unemployed. TABLE MA-15.5 SALT LAKE CITY RENTAL MARKET MISMATCH Income Range Maximum Affordable Rent, Including Utilities Renters Rental Units Housing Mismatch Number Percentage Number Percentage Less than $5,000 $125 2,798 6.9% 289 1% (2,509) $5,000 - $9,999 $250 2,523 6.3% 1,235 3% (1,288) $10,000 - $14,999 $375 3,012 7.5% 1,400 3% (1,612) $15,000 - $19,999 $500 2,467 6.1% 1,699 4% (768) $20,000 - $24,999 $625 2,716 6.7% 3,871 9% 1,155 $25,000 - $34,999 $875 5,520 13.7% 13,490 32% 7,970 $35,000 - $49,999 $1,250 6,129 15.2% 11,155 27% 5,026 $50,000 - $74,999 $1,875 7,067 17.5% 6,830 16% (237) $75,000 or more $1,875+ 8,128 20.1% 1,623 4% (6,505) Total/Low-Income Gap 40,360 41,592 100% (6,177) Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates HOW IS AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING LIKELY TO CHANGE CONSIDERING CHANGES TO HOME VALUES AND/OR RENTS? Housing costs have increased during the past few years in both the rental and ownership markets. As Table MA-15.6 demonstrates, Salt Lake County rental rates are at an all -time high, with a 51% increase between 2010 and 2018. Decreases in rental affordability combined with low vacancy rates have created a very tight rental market, particularly for low -income households. TABLE MA-15.6 CHANGE IN AVERAGE RENTAL BY TYPE OF UNIT: SALT LAKE COUNTY Market Rent 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 % Change: 2010-2018 Studio $480 $515 $538 $586 $603 $638 $705 $745 $827 72.3% One Bedroom $629 $659 $709 $745 $757 $804 $833 $906 $969 54.1% Two Bedroom, One Bath $706 $725 $759 $792 $809 $833 $879 $932 $1,023 44.9% Two Bedroom, Two Bath $816 $862 $943 $969 $983 $1,050 $1,085 $1,158 $1,242 52.2% Three Bedroom, Two Bath $956 $1,025 $1,051 $1,075 $1,085 $1,132 $1,244 $1,275 $1,373 43.6% Overall $720 $754 $814 $850 $865 $907 $949 $1,011 $1,087 51.0% Source: Cushman and Wakefield, 2017 Apartment Market Report: Greater Salt Lake Area ; CBRE, 2018 Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report 107 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 As indicated in Table MA-15.7, prices for existing home sales in the Salt Lake City metropolitan area were up between 2018 and 2019 and the number of homes sold saw a small increase. TABLE MA-15.7 NUMBER OF HOMES SOLD AND AVERAGE SALES PRICE: SALT LAKE CITY METROPOLITAN AREA Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD PD&R Regional Reports, 3rd Quarter 2019 HOW DO HOME RENTS/FAIR MARKET RENT COMPARE TO AREA MEDIAN RENT? HOW MIGHT THIS IMPACT YOUR STRATEGY TO PRODUCE OR PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? HOME rents and Housing Choice Fair Market Rents are lower than actual rental rates in Salt Lake City. Therefore, it is critic al that the existing stock of subsidized housing is preserved and mechanisms are put in place to help address the gap in HOME/Fair Market Rents and the prevailing rent amounts. Individuals and families displaced from subsidized housing will have a difficul t time finding suitable replacement housing affordable at their income level. In the current housing market, rental subsidies are usually required for populations that fall below 50% AMI. The City should prioritize the rehabilitation of existing housing st ock and anti-displacement strategies to meet the needs of vulnerable populations and stabilize neighborhoods. DISCUSSION Tight market conditions with historically high rents and very low vacancy rates have exacerbated the challenges of low-income households to obtain affordable housing. An analysis of housing gaps has determined that Salt Lake City has a shortage of 6,177 rental units affordable to renters earning less than $20,000 per year. This is a decline of 2,063 units from the shortage of 8,240 rent al units in 2013. With rising rents and few units available, this situation is likely to worsen. It is the City’s intent to be proactively involved in preserving existing affordable housing and facilitating the development of additional affordable housing. This is essential in order to prevent an increase in homelessness from the current extremely tight housing market. The Strategic Plan identifies how Salt Lake City intends to use federal funding to preserve and facilitate affordable housing in our communi ty. MA-20 CONDITION OF HOUSING – 91.210(a) INTRODUCTION HUD defines housing conditions as overcrowding, cost -burdened, a lack of complete plumbing, or kitchen facilities. Based on this definition, about 44.8% of renters and 20.8% of the owners live in a unit with at least one condition. CHAS data also indicates that there are 570 housing units, vacant and occupied, that lack a complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S DEFINITION F OR “SUBSTANDARD COND ITION” AND “SUBSTANDARD CONDITION BUT SUITABLE FOR REHABILITATIO N:” The City defines substandard housing units as those that are not in compliance with the City’s existing housing code. “Substandard condition” is not a term this jurisdiction uses; instead, projects are designed t o address items in residential units that do not meet that code. The City also follows the federal register definitions for substandard housing as defined in 24 CFR § 5.425 Federal preference: Substandard housing. For units to be considered in “substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation,” they must be both economically and structurally viable. All rental properties in Salt Lake City require a business license. Landlords are required to Number of Homes Sold Average Price Q3 2018 Q3 2019 % Change Q3 2018 Q3 2019 % Change 18,500 17,750 -4% $357,400 $383,600 7% 108 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 maintain minimum standard condition of housing, as per Salt Lake City’s Existing Residential Code. The purpose of the Residential Housing Code is to provide for the health, safety, comfort, con venience, and aesthetics of the City. TABLE MA-20.1 CONDITION OF UNITS Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % With one selected condition 7,595 20.1% 16,508 40.9% With two selected conditions 174 0.5% 1,544 3.8% With three selected conditions 19 0.1% 43 0.1% With four selected conditions 42 0.1% - 0.0% No selected conditions 30,039 79.3% 22,265 55.2% Total 37,869 100.00% 40,360 100.00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Tenure by Selected Physical and Financial Conditions TABLE MA-20.2 YEAR UNIT BUILT Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % 2000 or later 2,250 6% 3,710 9% 1980-1999 3,820 11% 7,000 18% 1960-1979 5,490 15% 11,815 30% Before 1960 24,800 68% 16,540 42% Total 36,360 100% 39,065 100% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE MA-20.3 RISK OF LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARD Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % Total number of units built before 1980 30,290 83% 28,355 73% Housing units built before 1980 with children present 4,600 13% 4,225 11% Source: 2012-2016 CHAS TABLE MA-20.4 VACANT UNITS Suitable for Rehabilitation Not Suitable for Rehabilitation Total Vacant Units 140 0 140 Abandoned Vacant Units 0 0 0 109 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 REO Properties 0 0 0 Abandoned REO Properties 0 0 0 Source: Salt Lake City Civil Enforcement DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R OWNER AND RENTER REHABILITATION BASED ON THE CONDITION OF THE JURISDICTION’S HOUSING: An indicator commonly used to evaluate the condition of housing stock is the age of the unit. Older homes are more likely to have condition problems and are at higher risk of lead -based paint. Approximately 29% of housing units in Salt Lake City were built prior to 1940.42 Many older homes may be in excellent condition due to revitalization efforts in the area; however, condition issues are still more likely to occur in older homes. Many of the block groups with a high percentage of older units tend to be located below 900 South and east of State Street. This can be seen in the figure below: FIGURE MA-20.1 PERCENT OF B LOCK GROUP HOUSING UNITS B UILT BEFORE 1950 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS WIT HIN THE JURISDICTION THAT ARE OCCUPIED BY LOW- OR MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES THAT CONTAIN LEAD -BASED PAINT HAZARDS. 91.205 (e), 91.405 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified that approximately three -quarters of the nation’s housing stock built before 1978 contains som e lead-based paint. This means residential units built prior to 1978 42 U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates 110 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 are considered to be most at risk for containing lead-based paints (LBP) as the use of LBP was prohibited in residential units after 1978. The 2012-2016 CHAS reports that approximately 83% of owner-occupied units and 73% of renter-occupied units were built prior to 1980. This means that up to 77.7% of Salt Lake City’s total housing stock is at risk of exposure to LBP. DISCUSSION Salt Lake City has many older homes which are more likely to contain LBP. Homes built before 1940 have an 87% chance of containing LBP according to the EPA and 29% of the City’s housing supply was built during 1939 or earlier.43 FIGURE MA-20.2 PROBABILITY OF CONTAINING LEAD-BASED PAINT BY YEAR CONSTRUCTED Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www2.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family Lead is highly toxic and can cause many serious health problems, especially in young children who have a greater risk of exposure and also a higher level of susceptibilit y to lead poisoning. Families with children under six may face the risk of the child ingesting paint chips on the walls and floors of these older buildings. These highly toxic paint chips, and even lead dust, can cause lead poisoning. According to the Cent ers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no identified safe level of lead exposure in children. Exposure to lead can lead to: Damage to the brain and nervous system Slowed growth and development Learning and behavior problems Hearing and speech problems Which can cause: Lower IQ Decreased ability to pay attention Underperforming in school44 43 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www2.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family 44 Center for Disease Control and Prevention – Health Effect of Lead Exposure. (2019, July 30). Retrieved Novemb er 12, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/health -effects.htm. 87% 69% 24% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Before 1940 1940 - 1959 1960-1977 111 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Salt Lake City has various programs through the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division and local nonprofits, such as ASSIST and Community Development Corporation of Utah, to remediate lead hazards in residential units. Additionally, the Lead Safe Housing program created by Salt Lake County provides free inspections, dust sampling analysis, blood testing for children under six, window replacement, pai nt removal on doorjambs and floors, and specialized cleaning.45 The program is aimed at assisting low - or moderate-income households in providing lead-safe homes. MA-25 PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING – 91.210(b) INTRODUCTION Local housing authorities provide long -term rental housing and rental assistance through Low -Income Public Housing (LIPH), Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8), and Continuum of Care housing vouchers. In addition, the housing authorities as well as privatel y owned entities provide additional subsidized housing opportunities through affordable housing and supportive housing programs. TABLE MA-25.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS Program Type Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Vouchers Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled* Number of units/vouchers available 99 NA 2,894 380 1,876 161 67 410 Number of accessible units NA 24 NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City DESCRIBE THE NUMBER AND PHYSICAL CONDITION OF PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS IN THE JURISDICTION, INCLUD ING THOSE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN AN APPROVED PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLAN: The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently manages 30 properties including Housing Choice Vouchers, Project Based Vouchers, Mod Rehab Vouchers and programs for Veterans, homeless, disabled, and elderly persons. These properties offer over 1,800 units of varying sizes. The table below lists each property by name, type, and number of units. TABLE MA-25.2 LIST OF PUBLIC HOUSING PROPERTIES BY TYPE AND UNITS Name Type Units Phillips Plaza Senior Public 1 Bed 99 Romney Plaza Senior Public 1 Bed 70 City Plaza Senior Public 1 Bed 150 Rendon Terrace Senior Public 1-2 Bed 70 45 Salt Lake County, Lead Safe Housing Program, from https://slco.org/lead-safe-housing/qualify-for-free-services/services/ 112 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Name Type Units Cedar Crest LIHTC/VSH/Affordable 1-2 Bed 12 Sunrise Metro LIHTC Homeless 1 Bed 100 Valor Apts. Vet. Homeless 1 Bed 14 Valor House Vet. Homeless 1 Bed 72 Freedom Landing Vet. Homeless 1 Bed 109 Jefferson Circle Section 8 Multi-Family 2 Bed 20 Faultline Family Affordable 1-2 Bed 8 Redwood Road Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 22 330 North Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 25 Pacific Ave Family Affordable 2-5 Bed 25 Pacific Heights Family Affordable 2-5 Bed 22 Central City Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 17 Palmer Court Single/Family Affordable 1-3 Bed 201 Denver NA 12 771 South Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 17 Capitol Homes Low-Income 1-2 Bed 39 Jefferson School I LIHTC Family Mixed 1-2 Bed 84 Jefferson School II LIHTC Family Mixed 1-2 Bed 84 Taylor Springs Senior LIHTC Affordable 1-2 Bed 95 Taylor Gardens Senior LIHTC Affordable 1-2 Bed 112 9th East Lofts LIHTC Family Mixed 1-2 Bed 68 Fairmont Fourplex Family Affordable 1 Bed 4 West Temple Duplexes Family Affordable 3 Bed 4 Riverside Senior Affordable 1-2 Bed 41 Ben Albert Family Affordable 1-2 Bed 68 Canterbury Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 77 Cambridge Cove Family Affordable 2 Bed 71 TOTAL 1,812 Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City DESCRIBE THE RESTORATION AND REVITALIZAT ION NEEDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS IN THE JURISDICTION: All housing authority units are maintained in excellent condition. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and Housing Connect both conduct and complete an annual property needs assessment in order to main tain the properties in a decent and safe manner. The Housing Authority has maintained its Public Housing properties in the past with the use of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Capital Fund Grants. These grants are tied to Public Housing. The Housing A uthority of Salt Lake City has applied for a HUD program, Resident Assistance Demonstration (RAD), which is a voluntary program, seeking to preserve public housing by providing housing agencies with access to more stable funding to make needed improvements to properties. 113 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The RAD program allows PHAs to manage a property using one of two types of HUD funding contracts that are tied to a specific building and replace the operating subsidy and capital funds previously used. Housing Choice project-based voucher (PBV) or Housing Choice project-based rental assistance (PBRA). Both are 15-20 years long and are more stable funding sources. This shift will make it easier for PHAs to borrow money and use low - income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) as well as other forms of financing. These private sources of additional money will enable the Housing Authority to make improvements essential for preserving the Public Housing stock. This funding change does not change the amount of rent paid by residents or the clientele serv ed. HASLC has also developed a 30-year replacement and improvement plan and each property has a schedule for improvements that is broken down to one- and five-year plans. DESCRIBE THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY’S STRATEGY FOR IMPROVING THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES RESIDING IN PUBLIC HOUSING: The following are examples of strategies that have been implemented to improve living conditions at City housing complexes: a strengthened application screening process; strict lease enforcem ent; off-duty Salt Lake City Police Officer conducting security patrols on their properties; improved exterior lighting; added accessibility for those aging in place; implementation of a preventative maintenance program; and upgrades and renovations to properties when possible, as needed. MA-30 HOMELESS FACILITIES AND SERVICES – 91.210(c) INTRODUCTION A variety of facilities and services are offered to homeless individuals and families, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, safe havens, per manent supportive housing, tenant based rental assistance, outreach and engagement, housing placement, general medical, employment, substance abuse, behavioral health, legal aid, veteran services, public assistance, family crisis, hygiene, and other miscel laneous services. These services are provided by government agencies, faith -based organizations, service-oriented groups, housing authorities, health service organizations and others. TABLE MA-30.1 FACILITIES AND HOUSING TARGETED TO HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS Population ES: Year-Round Beds ES: Voucher/ Seasonal/ Overflow Beds Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds PSH Beds Under Development Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 542 33 143 1,257c 165 Households with Only Adults 814 147 165 1,271d 0 114 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 1,502e 0 Veterans 0 0 67a 597 75 Unaccompanied Youth 34 20 37b 9 0 Source: Utah Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) aAll 67 Veterans are also counted in the Households with Only Adults bAll 37 Unaccompanied Youth beds are also counted in the Households with Only Adults c150 of the Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) are also veteran dedicated beds d447 of the Households with Only Adults are also veteran dedicated beds e775 of the Chronically Homeless beds are also counted in Households with Only Adults, 727 are also counted in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren), and 20 are also veteran dedicated beds. DESCRIBE MAINSTREAM SERVICES, SUCH AS HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH, AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO THE EXTENT THOSE SERVICES ARE USED TO COMPLEMENT SERVICES TARGETED TO HOMELESS PERSONS. A wide array of mainstream services augments homeless specific services in Salt Lake City. These programs are an important aspect of providing hom eless services in the City. Some of these services are: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Medicare Medicaid Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Veteran’s Benefits Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) Unemployment Worker’s Compensation Social Security Disability (SSDI) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Social Security Other miscellaneous benefits The Salt Lake homeless services community has a strong history of effectively leverag ing these mainstream benefits in providing homeless services. LIST AND DESCRIBE SERVICES AND FACILITIES THAT MEET THE NEED S OF HOMELESS PERSONS, PARTICULARL Y CHRONICALLY HOMELE SS INDIVIDUALS AND F AMILIES, FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH. IF THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE LISTED ON SCREEN SP-40 INSTITUTIONAL DEL IVERY STRUCTURE OR SCREEN MA-35 SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITIES AND SERVICES, DESCRIBE HOW THESE FACILITIES AND SERVICES SPECIFICALL Y ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THESE POPULATIONS. Salt Lake City Corporation spent $2,554,000 on Ho meless Related Services in fiscal year 2018-19. The funding came from the General Fund. 115 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 TABLE MA-30.2 2019-2020 HOMELESS RELATED SERVICES Agency/Program Facility Name Address Description Family Promise Emergency Shelter 814 W. 800 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Serves families with children Rescue Mission Women’s Center Emergency Shelter 1165 S. State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves Single Women Rescue Mission Emergency Shelter/Day Center/ 463 S. 400 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves Men South Valley Services Emergency Shelter 8400 S., Redwood Rd., West Jordan, Utah 84088 Serves female and male victims of domestic violence and their children YWCA Shelter Emergency Shelter 322 E. 300 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves female victims of domestic violence and their children Salt Lake County Youth Services Emergency Shelter 377 W. Price Ave., (3610 S.) Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Serves youth Gale Miller Resource Center Emergency Shelter 242 Paramount Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah, 84115 Serves homeless men and women Geraldine E King Women’s Center Emergency Shelter 131 E. 700 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves homeless women Volunteers of America Youth Resource Center Emergency Shelter/Day Center 888 S. 400 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves homeless and at-risk teens ages 15- 22 Men’s Resource Center Emergency Shelter 3380 S. 1000 W., South Salt Lake, Utah 84119 Serves homeless men Volunteers of America Homeless Outreach Program Donation Disbursement/ Case Management 131 E. 700 S, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves homeless women, men, and youth living on the street Weigand Homeless Resource Center Day Center 437 W. 200 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents VA Homeless Program Veteran’s Assistance 2970 S. Main St., South Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Serves chronically homeless and VA veterans Metro Employment Center Employment/Welfare/ Financial Assistance 720 S. 200 E., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves all homeless residents Utah Community Action Program Employment/Welfare/ Financial Assistance 764 S. 200 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents Eagle Ranch Ministries Prepared Meals & Food Pantries 500 S. 600 E., Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Serves all homeless residents Good Samaritan Program | The Cathedral of the Madeleine Prepared Meals & Food Pantries 331 E. South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Serves all homeless residents Rescue Mission Prepared Meals & Food Pantries 463 S. 400 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents 116 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Agency/Program Facility Name Address Description St. Vincent de Paul Dining Hall Prepared Meals & Food Pantries 437 W. 200 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents Salt Lake City Mission Prepared Meals & Food Pantries 1151 S. Redwood Rd. #106, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Serves all homeless residents Crossroads Urban Center Food Pantries 347 S. 400 E., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves all homeless residents Eagle Ranch Distribution Center Food Pantries 1899 S. Redwood Rd., Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Serves all homeless residents Hildegarde’s Pantry Food Pantries 231 E. 100 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Serves all homeless residents House of Prayer Food Pantries 839 S. 200 W., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents Volunteers of America Adult Detox Drug/Alcohol Detoxification 252 W. Brooklyn Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves men suffering from addiction VOA Detox Center for Women and Children Drug/Alcohol Detoxification 697 W. 4170 S., Murray, Utah 84123 Serves adult women and children under the age of 10 Wasatch Homeless Healthcare dba 4th Street Clinic Medical Care for Homeless 409 W. 400 S., Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Serves all homeless residents Source: Salt Lake County MA-35 SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITIES AND SERVICES – 91.210(d) INTRODUCTION This section provides an overview of the facilities and services that ensure at -risk and special needs populations, including persons returning from physical and mental health facilities, receive appropriate supportive housing. TABLE MA-35.1 HOPWA ASSISTANCE BASELINE Type of HOPWA Assistance Number of People Receiving Services Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) 58 Permanent Housing in Facilities NA Short-Term Rent, Mortgage, Utility Assistance (STRMU) 52 Short Term or Transitional H ousing Facilities NA Permanent H ousing Placement 24 Source: HOPWA CAPER and HOPWA Beneficiary Verification Worksheet, 2018-2019 INCLUDING THE ELDERL Y, FRAIL ELDERLY, PERSONS WITH DISABILIT IES (MENTAL, PHYSICAL, DEVELOPMENTAL), PERSONS WITH ALCOHOL OR OTHER DRUG ADDICTIONS, PERSONS WITH 117 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 HIV/AIDS AND THEIR F AMILIES, PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS AND ANY OTHER CATEGORIES THE JURISDICTION MAY SPECIFY AND DESCRIBE THEIR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NEEDS. Salt Lake City’s housing an d supportive service network addresses the needs of the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with substance addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and public housing residents through the following efforts. Efforts are typically coord inated through a case management and referral format to link services and opportunities. Physical healthcare programs Mental healthcare programs Emergency daycare services Youth day centers Homeless day centers Emergency food pantries Tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) programs Project-based rental assistance (PBRA) programs Transitional housing programs Rapid re-housing programs permanent supportive housing programs Housing accessibility programs homelessness prevention services Substance addiction treatment programs Life skills training programs Employment training programs Transportation assistance programs Fair housing advocacy programs Even with the multitude of diverse services available in Salt Lake City, there are still gaps in services. For example, substance addiction treatment centers that serve homeless and low -income individuals, including First Step House, St. Mary’s Center for Recovery, and The Haven, have considerable waiting lists. Similarly, programs that provide physical healthcare, rental assistance, homelessness prevention, employment services, and life skills training do not have enough funding to meet demand. DESCRIBE PROGRAMS FOR ENSURING THAT PERSONS RETURNING FROM MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH INST ITUTIONS RECEIVE APPROPRIATE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. Programs that provide supportive housing opportunities for persons dealing with mental and physical health recovery are available in Salt Lake City. However, supportive housing opportunities for these populations are in high demand with limited resources available. The Valley Behavioral Health’s Safe Haven program provides homeless individuals with severe mental illness housing and personalized assistance programs. It also provides comprehensive mental health support and treatment for temporary and lifelong issues caused by traumatic life events. The program offers treatments for psychiatric conditions, behavioral issues, autism, addiction, and other health conditions. In addition, Salt Lake City partners with the local housing authorities, Utah Community Action Program, the Salt Lake Continuum of Care, local homeless resource centers, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah to determine the housing and supportive services need of non -homeless population who require these services. 118 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SPECIFY THE ACTIVITIES THAT THE JURISDICTION PLANS TO UNDERTAKE DURING THE NEXT YEAR TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES NEEDS ID ENTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 91.215(e) WITH RESPECT TO PE RSONS WHO ARE NOT HO MELESS BUT HAVE OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS. LINK TO ONE-YEAR GOALS 91.315(e). Please refer to section AP -20 and AP-35 of the Salt Lake City 2020-21 Annual Action Plan for specific one- year goals to address housing and supportive service needs of non -homeless, special needs populations. FOR ENTITLEMENT/CONSORTIA GRANTEES: SPECIFY THE ACTIVITIES TH AT THE JURISDICTION PLANS T O UNDERTAKE DURING T HE NEXT YEAR TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 91.215(e) WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS BUT HAVE OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS. LINK TO ONE-YEAR GOALS. (91.220(2)) The City will continue to provide tenant-based rental assistance, project-based rental assistance, short-term rental assistance, housing placement, and supportive services for persons with HIV/AIDS and other special populations through the HOPWA, HOME, and ESG programs. MA-40 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 91.210(e) Various market barriers can limit the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, especially in regard to affordable housing for low and moderate-income residents. Both market and regulatory factors affect the ability to meet current and future housing needs. Barriers have been identified by previous task force groups organized by Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, as well as through extensive interviews with local brokers, developers, housing representatives, planners, etc. Identified barriers to the preservation, improvement and development of housing of affordable to low and moderate-income households include the following: Economic Conditions While incomes have increased significantly in the Salt Lake Valley since 2010, they have not kept pace with increases in construction costs and housing values. Consequently, the gap between incomes and housing has increased. Select neighborhoods in Salt Lake City spend significantly more on transportation costs than others. This results in less income available for housing . Land Regulations and Permitting Process Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance (sim ilar to other cities) contains regulations that establish standards for residential development including minimum lot size, density, unit size, height, setback, and parking standards. Some of these regulations can inhibit the ability for affordable housing development feasibility (i.e., profitability), including the following: o Density limitations o Lack of multifamily zoning o Stringent parking requirements (reducing cost feasibility) The process to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing is reportedly difficult to navigate for some developers. 119 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Permitting and environmental review processes are often time consuming and reduce possible profits for developers, thereby discouraging development and/or encouraging development of higher -margin product (i.e., market-rate units). Land Costs High land costs in certain areas do not allow for adequate profit in the development of lower -income housing product, particularly in desirable neighborhoods that have experienced growth and new construction over the past decade. Most affordable land is located on the west side of Salt Lake City, furthering the concentration of affordable housing in select areas, and inhibiting the dispersal of housing options throughout the City. Land costs restrict the ability to place af fordable housing in closer proximity to necessary services, particularly near transit options and employment centers. Consequently, new housing often is constructed in areas that result in high percentages of income being spent towards transportation. Ultimately, these developments further exacerbate traffic issues. Construction Costs Construction costs, particularly labor costs, have experienced notable fluctuations in the recent past. This has caused upward pressure on rent and limited what type of produ ct developers are able to provide. Consequently, the profit margin in providing affordable housing is typically limited, or altogether non-existent without the presence of incentives and tax credits. Rehabilitation of existing product has increased in cost due to overall labor shortages. Furthermore, the gained value of improvements is often not more than the costs of construction, resulting in limited or no profit for undertaking such renovation. This limits the desire to undertake such endeavors unless incentives can be provided. Development and Rehabilitation Financing Affordable housing projects with complex layered finance structures can experience increased land holding costs because of additional due diligence and longer timelines. This is partially alleviated with City incentive programs that reduce some financing pressures. There is strong competition for local funding tools, such as the State of Utah’s Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund. Neighborhood Market Conditions Negative public perception and community opposition (“NIMBYism”) can limit affordable housing development when a zoning approval process is required . Some neighborhoods that have access to transit options do not have the appeal for large -scale housing developments, due primarily to low -quality surrounding improvements, higher crime rates, and limited employment diversity . For a discussion on current and proposed efforts to reduce or barriers to affordable housing, please see section SP -55 Barriers to Affordable Housing in this Plan . MA-45 NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DE VELOPMENT ASSETS – 91.215(f) INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City is on the pathway to becoming one of the most diverse, sustainable, and innovative economies in the nation. The City links together unsurpassed outdoor recreation oppor tunities; internationally acclaimed technology and research facilities; competitive higher education institutions; industry -leading healthcare facilities; a light rail and streetcar transit system; an international airport; and cultural opportunities. Stro ng 120 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 economic activity is enhanced by culturally rich neighborhoods that intermix diverse housing opportunities with locally owned businesses. Although Salt Lake City’s economy is strong, economic inequality is escalating within the community. Between 2000 and 2017, homeowner incomes increased by 52.7% while renter incomes only increased by 40.9%. The individual poverty rate increased between 2000 and 2017 rising from 13.7% to 17.8%. There are high social and economic costs for increasing economic inequality and allowing families to remain in poverty. TABLE MA-45.1 BUSINESS BY SECTOR Business by Sector Number of Workers Number of Jobs Share of Workers Share of Jobs Jobs Less Workers Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 678 687 1% 0% -1% Art, Entertainment, Accommodations 13,079 23,121 12% 11% -1% Construction 5,115 8,507 5% 4% -1% Education and Health Care Services 28,729 38,374 27% 18% -9% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 7,492 17,007 7% 8% 1% Information 2,558 6,896 3% 3% 0% Manufacturing 9,295 24,775 9% 12% 3% Other Services 5,637 6,718 5% 3% -2% Professional, Scientific, Management Services 14,898 19,470 14% 9% -5% Public Administration 3,764 17,111 4% 8% 4% Retail Trade 10,702 17,854 10% 9% -1% Transportation & Warehousing 4,448 16,600 4% 8% 4% Wholesale Trade 2,147 12,071 2% 6% 4% TOTAL 108,542 209,191 U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs) TABLE MA-45.2 LABOR FORCE Labor Force Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 113,308 Civilian Employed Population 16+ Years 108,542 Unemployment Rate 4.1% Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 N/A Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 N/A Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Economic Characteristics TABLE MA-45.3 121 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 OCCUPATIONS BY SECTOR Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Economic Characteristics Tables MA-45.4 and Figure MA-45.1 break down the travel trends and commute distances for Salt Lake City residents. Table MA-45.4 shows that nearly half of the workers living in the City travel 15 to 29 minutes for work. The majority of City residents work relatively close to home with four of every five workers experiencing a daily commute under 30 minutes. TABLE MA-45.4 TRAVEL TIME Travel Time Number of People Percentage < 15 Minutes 36,473 35.1% 15-29 Minutes 47,383 45.6% 30-44 Minutes 14,236 13.7% 45-59 Minutes 2,806 2.7% 60 or More Minutes 3,013 2.9% Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes) 19.1 Minutes Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics Figure MA-45.1 shows how the usage rate of public transportation and carpooling decreases as the level of income increases with those making higher incomes electing to drive to work alone. FIGURE MA-45.1 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK BY INCOME LEVEL Occupations by Sector Number of People Percentage Management, Business, Science, and Arts Occupations 49,312 45.4% Service Occupations 17,568 16.2% Sales and Office Occupations 21,804 20.1% Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance Occupations 6,829 6.3% Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations 13,029 12.0% Total 108,542 100.00% Below the Poverty Level 100% to 149% of the Poverty Level At or Above 150% of the Poverty Level 64% 21% 15% 73% 14% 13% 81% 12% 7% Drove Alone Carpooled Public Transportation (Excludes Taxi) 122 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics TABLE MA-45.5 BUSINESS BY SECTOR Educational Attainment Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Less Than High School Graduate 9,112 655 3,605 High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 12,712 712 4,165 Some College or Associates Degree 21,771 712 5,117 Bachelor's Degree or Higher 42,345 963 6,738 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 25 to 64 Years Old TABLE NA-45.6 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY AGE Age 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65+ Less than 9th Grade 2546 3,834 3,340 5,543 2,170 9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 6,124 6,335 4,403 6,851 4,383 High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 13,620 10,994 6,659 9,958 5,652 Some College, No Degree 3,924 21,070 12,228 16,804 8,962 Associates Degree 2546 3,834 3,340 5,543 2,170 Bachelor's Degree 6,124 6,335 4,403 6,851 4,383 Graduate or Professional Degree 13,620 10,994 6,659 9,958 5,652 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 18 Years Old TABLE MA-45.7 BUSINESS BY SECTOR Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less than High School Graduate $25,114 High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) $27,493 Some College or Associate Degree $31,981 Bachelor's Degree $42,626 Graduate or Professional Degree $67,029 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Earnings in the Past 12 Months (In 2018 Inflation -Adjusted Dollars) 123 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 BASED ON THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY TABLE ABOVE, WHAT ARE THE MAJ OR EMPLOYMENT SECTORS WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION? Table MA-45.1 shows that the major employment sectors within this ju risdiction are: 1) Education and Health Care Services; 2) Professional, Scientific, Management Services; 3) Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations; and 4) Retail Trade. The largest employers in the County are the University Hospital, Salt Lake County, and the University of Utah. DESCRIBE THE WORKFORCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY: Salt Lake City has been known as the “Crossroads of the West” for over 150 years. The term originated when the Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869 at Promontory, Utah and is still true as the Salt Lake International Airport is one of the busiest airports in the western United States. It facilitated over 330,000 flights in 2018. These flights connect cargo, passengers, and international business oppor tunities to the area and these factors have played a large role in many businesses choosing to use Salt Lake City as their corporate headquarters. Two major interstates – I-15 and I-80 – intersect in Salt Lake City, thus providing significant distribution accessibility and economic opportunity. The newly -designated Inland Port, located in the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City, will provide further opportunities for industry and job growth. Due to rapid growth, the City needs better east-west connections between residential development and employment centers. DESCRIBE ANY MAJOR CHANGES THAT MAY HAVE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT, SUCH AS PLANNED LOCAL OR REGIONAL PUBLIC OR PRIV ATE SECTOR INVESTMENTS OR INITIATIVES THAT HAVE AFFECTED O R MAY AFFECT JOB AND BUSINESS GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD. DESCRIBE ANY NEEDS FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, BUSINESS SUPPORT, OR INFRASTRUCTURE THESE CHANGES MAY CREATE. Salt Lake City International Airport Expansion The expansion of the Salt Lake City International Airport is expected to be completely finished by 2025, but it is anticipated that the first phase will open in September of 2020. The expansion focuses on utilizing new and sustainable practices that will increase space, comfort, and convenience for passen gers. This includes a complete technological and artistic redesign of the current airport which will allow Utah’s natural outdoor beauty to be displayed to millions of airport visitors each year. A recent economic impact analysis conducted by GSBS Consulting projected that the rebuild will inject $5.5 billion into the local economy and create more than 3,300 jobs.46 Between July 2018 and June 2019, the Salt Lake City International Airport served over 26.2 million passengers and had 341,152 Total Aircraft Ops.47 The airport ranks as the 23rd busiest airport in North America and the 85th busiest in the world with over 340 flights departing daily. It is located about 15 minutes from downtown Salt Lake City and is serviced by a direct light rail line to the downto wn area including the Salt Palace Convention Center. The proximity of these create opportunities for training and workforce housing. Inland Port Authority The Inland Port, located in the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City, covers approximately 16,000 ac res, sits at the intersection of two interstate freeways, major national railways and an international airport. This puts the area in high demand for expanding warehouse, distribution and manufacturing facilities. The Inland Port Authority was created to engage with interested organizations and individuals to establish a strategic plan to maximize the economic benefits of the Inland Port. 46 GSBS Consulting, Salt Lake City International Airport Redevelopment Program: Economic Impact Analysis, https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/The-New-SLC/Airport-EIA-Final-Report.pdf 47 Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Elevations, Summer 2019, https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/ Elevations-Newsletter/Elevations-Summer-Edition -August-2019.pdf 124 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Due to these and other large-scale projects and an overwhelming need for more skilled workforce, Salt Lake City Community College created a brand new, cutting edge campus that focuses primarily on building our skilled labor workforce. This effort and many more will work to help support large scale projects as our community evolves. HOW DO THE SKILLS AND EDUCATION OF THE CURRENT WORKFORCE CORRESPOND TO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE JURISDICTION? The percentage of residents with at least some higher education is higher than the national average with over 71% of residents reporting they’ve received some college education. T he national average is 60%. As demonstrated in Table MA-45.8, Salt Lake City also has a much higher percentage of residents with bachelor’s degrees and graduate degrees than the rest of the nation. TABLE MA-45.8 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, SALT LAKE CITY AND UNITED STATES Educational Attainment Salt Lake City % of Population United States % of Population Less Than High School Graduate 11.2% 12.4% High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 18.1% 27.6% Some College or Associates Degree 30.2% 31.0% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 23.7% 18.4% Graduate or Professional Degree 19.4% 10.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 25 Years and Over The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates quarterly underemployment through alternative measures of labor utilization. The measure used for underemployment is U -6 which not only measures unemployment, but also includes those who are willing to work and have recently looked for work, as well as those working part-time but who want to work full-time. This means this categorization includes current employees who feel underutilized in their current employment. The national U -6 rate between the fourth quarter of 2018 and the third quarter of 2019 was 7.3. In Utah, this rate was 5.5%.48 DESCRIBE ANY CURRENT WORKFORCE TRAINING INITIATIVE INCLUDING THOSE SUPPORTED BY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS, COMMUNIT Y COLLEGES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. DESCRIBE HOW THESE EFFORT S WILL SUPPORT THE J URISDICTION’S CONSOLIDATED PLAN. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan emphasizes providing opportunities to help build healthy neighborhoods. This can be supported by efforts and organization with job training initiatives. Salt Lake City already has several community programs that provide job training. These organizations typically assist clients in learning how to search for jobs, write resumes, and interview in addition to key life skills that are necessary to be successful in the workplace. By highlighting these initiatives in the Consolidated Plan, the City can assist these programs in increasing their capacity to provide services. Many of these programs focus on assisting vulnerable populations and a few are listed below: 48 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm 125 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Advantage Services (non -profit that employs homeless people with disabilities) Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah (refugees and immigrants) The Columbus Foundation (individuals with disabilities) English Skills Learning Center (teac hing English as a 2nd language) Odyssey House (alcohol and drug rehabilitation) First Step House (substance use disorders and mental health) DOES YOUR JURISDICTION PARTICIPATE IN A COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY? No, Salt Lake City does not participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. IF SO, WHAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ARE YOU UNDERTAKING THAT MAY BE COORDINATED WITH THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN. IF NOT, DESCRIBE OTHE R LOCAL/REGIONAL PLANS OR INITIATIVES THAT IMPACT ECONOMIC GROWTH. Salt Lake City does not currently have a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy; however, the City does have a variety of local plans and initiatives that impact economic growth. In addition to the job training initiatives listed above, here are a few of the City’s plans and projects designed to stimulate economic development: Economic Development Loan Fund The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) is designed to stimulate business development and expansion, create employment opportunities, encourage private investment, promote economic development, and enhance neighborhood vitality and commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City by making loans available to businesses that meet City objectives. Loans are available for: Startup and existing businesses Revenue producing non -profit ventures A business expanding or relocating to Salt Lake City Energy-efficient (e2) equipment upgrades and building retrofits Businesses impacted by construction Construction/tenant improvement and/or real estate acquisi tion Signage, retail presentation, and display work Fixtures, furnishings, equipment and inventory Working capital and marketing The EDLF fills a gap in economic development by lending to high -tech and manufacturing businesses that would not otherwise be eligible for a traditional bank loan yet have strong potential for growth. Loans are considered a bridge loan and not meant to be long -term financing. Salt Lake City Emergency Loan Program During the recent COVID-19 crisis, Salt Lake City launched an Emergency Loan Program to assist business with funding to support them through a short -term community crisis. This Program is designed as a bridge to ensure that business can stay afloat including making rent/mortgage payments, keep staff employed, cover utility and ongoing costs during a time of crisis and significantly decreased revenues. While it is not anticipated that this program will continue in this exact form throughout the entire Consolidated Plan, it is important to note that the City has the ability to react quickly and provide additional resources when necessary. Master Plans 126 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Salt Lake City’s Master Plans provide an outline of community and economic development goals for specific areas of the City. Planning efforts since 2010 include the planning d ocuments: Central Community o 400 South Livable Communities Project - 2012 Downtown o Downtown Plan – 2016 East Bench o Existing Conditions Report – 2014 o East Bench Master Plan – 2017 o Parley’s Way Corridor – 2017 Northwest Community o North Temple Boulevard Plan - 2010 Northwest Quadrant o Northwest Quadrant Master Plan – 2016 Sugar House o Sugar House Streetcar Update to Master Plan – 2016 o Circulation and Streetcar Amenities for Sugar House Business District – 2014 o 21st and 21st Neighborhood Plan – 2017 o Sugar House Circulation Plan – 2013 o Sugar House Phase 2 Alternative Analysis – 2013 Westside Master Plan o Westside Master Plan – 2014 o 9-Line Corridor Master Plan - 2015 Redevelopment Agency Programs The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) works to revitalize Salt Lake City’s neighborhoods and business districts to improve livability, spark economic growth, and foster authentic communities, serving as a catalyst for strategic development projects that enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitalit y, and public spaces. The RDA accomplishes this through the following tools: Property acquisition, clearance, re-planning, sale, and redevelopment Planning, financing, and development of public improvements Providing management support and tax increment reimbursement for projects that will revitalize underutilized areas Gap financing in the form of loans, grants, and equity participation to encourage private investment Relocation assistance and business retention assistance to businesses. Improved redevelopment areas contribute to the overall health and vitality of the City by reversing the negative effects of blight, while increasing the tax base from which taxing entities draw their funds. In Salt Lake City, Redevelopment Project Areas’ tax bases have h istorically grown at twice the rate of surrounding areas that are not designated as RDA project areas. National Development Corporation Since 1969, the NDC has carried out its mission to create jobs and promote community development opportunities in economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods. NDC raises equity through its Corporate Equity Fund and invests in affordable housing. NDC also creates jobs in underserved areas through its New Markets Tax Credit Program and through its Small Business Lending Progra m, NDC Grow America Fund. The City uses the expertise and knowledge of NDC to continue to develop, finance, and market community development and affordable housing. 127 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Façade Grant Program The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division utilizes federal funding to support local businesses by offering up to $25,000 in grants to improve their façades. These improvements could include items such as door upgrades, window improvements, paint or stucco updating, installing of garages, security lighting, fascia/soffit work, etc. Increasing the street appeal of small businesses located within the City positively affects the surrounding neighborhoods through increasing the visual appeal of neighboring commercial areas and boosting the economy on a local level. City Transportation Plans In 2020, the City will update its Transportation Plan which was prepared in 1996. As the Plan unfolds, efforts will continue to be made to coordinate and leverage resources in low -income neighborhoods. At the current time, the City’s Transit Master Plan (2017) and the Pedestrian/Bike Master Plan (2015) are the most recent and relevant. The City is currently committing $5.3m to improved bus service, $1.1m for capital investments related to bus service (bus stops, transit hubs, first/last mile improvements such as sidewalks and bike lanes), and $800,000 for a pilot on-demand ride hailing service. This provides an opportunity to leverage CDBG funds in disadvantaged neighborhoods to improve access to transportation and facilitate multimo dal transportation options. At the time the Transit Master Plan was completed, 83% of bus stops did not have shelters or benches, effectively discouraging potential riders. The study further found that access to transit in Salt Lake City is challenging because of the large blocks and wide streets, as well as lack of ADA improvements and access to stations. Finally, the Transit Master Plan found that the “cost of transit is particularly burdensome on large families, youth, and transit-dependent populations – low -income, older adults, persons with disabilities, and zero car households.”49 The City’s anticipates spending $1-2m per year in capital improvement projects such as traffic signal upgrades, safety projects, and bike/pedestrian enhancements. Again, th ere is the opportunity to provide better access to transportation and leverage funds from several sources. New Market Tax Credits (NMTC) Capital is attracted to eligible communities (where the poverty rate is at least 20% or where the median family income does not exceed 80% of the area’s median income) by providing private investors with a credit on their federal taxes for investments in qualifying areas. NMTC investors receive a tax credit equal to 39% of the Qualified Equity Investment (QEI) made in a C ommunity Development Entity (CDE) over a 7-year period. MA-50 NEEDS AND MARKET ANALYSIS DISCUSSION ARE THERE AREAS WHERE HOUSEHOLDS WITH MULTIPLE HOUSING PROBL EMS ARE CONCENTRATED? Salt Lake City has neighborhoods that are more likely to have housing units with multiple housing problems. These neighborhoods generally contain an older housing stock occupied by low -income households. Many of these neighborhoods are located in the Central City, Ballpark, Rose Park, Fairpark, Poplar Grove, and Glendale. ARE THERE ANY AREAS IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE RACIAL OR ETHNIC MINORITIES OR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES ARE CONCENTRATED? 49 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 2017 Executive Summary 128 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 In the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan there were three racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RCAP/ECAP) in Salt Lake County, two of which were in Salt Lake City. The number of racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in the County has dropped to only one, and this area is located just south of the City’s boundaries. An RCAP/ECAP is defined as a census tract with a family poverty rate greater than or equal to 40%, or a family poverty rate greater than or equal to 300% of the metro tract average, and a majority non - white population, measured at greater than 50%. The absence of RCAP/ECAPs does not mean that there aren’t areas where there is a substantial concentration of minorities with reportedly low incomes. Most census block groups to the west of I -15 reported a population composed of more than 50% minorities. These block groups also report some of the lowest incomes in the City as well. Most of these areas are located in the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods. WHAT ARE THE CHARACT ERISTICS OF THE MARKET IN THESE AREAS/NE IGHBORHOODS? The City has been experiencing increasing housing costs and wages have failed to increase at the same rate which can influence the ability for income mobility. Salt Lake City is focusing efforts to mitigate the negative externalities of poverty by increasing economic opport unities, improving neighborhood infrastructure, expanding services in distressed neighborhoods, improving the housing stock, and increasing access to public transit and multi-modal transportation options. The City is also making steps to incentivize afford able housing development in opportunity areas in order to expand housing choices through the City. In general, median sales prices and rents are significantly lower in areas of concentrated poverty than in the rest of the C ity. Households located in neighborhoods on the west side of I-15, such as Poplar Grove and Glendale have higher homeownership rates than the C ity average. The Ballpark and Central City neighborhoods have a much higher rental rate than the City average. Other housing market and demo graphic data points can be found in Table MA-50.1. TABLE MA-50.1 AREAS WITH HIGHER POVERTY LEVELS Ne i g h b o r h o o d Ce n s u s T r a c t Po p u l a t i o n Mi n o r i t y Poverty Rate Av e r a g e Ho u s e h o l d S i z e Me d i a n Ho u s e h o l d In c o m e Me d i a n H o m e Va l u e Tenure Co s t -Bu r d e n e d Re n t e r s Al l P e o p l e Fa m i l i e s Un d e r 1 8 Ow n e r Re n t e r Central City 1019 2,470 23% 34% 24% 50% 1.51 $31,852 $172,500 10% 90% 43% 1020 2,382 22% 21% 23% 16% 1.91 $40,395 $208,500 26% 74% 46% 1023 2,931 33% 24% 8% 17% 1.82 $22,568 $186,100 17% 83% 43% 1021 1,460 21% 27% 14% 31% 1.29 $24,815 $173,100 12% 88% 46% Ballpark 1029 4,514 22% 42% 47% 81% 2.01 $22,203 $147,100 23% 77% 54% Glendale 1028.01 5,319 57% 35% 28% 49% 4 $43,750 $164,700 43% 57% 67% 1028.02 6,704 54% 35% 28% 53% 3.73 $42,891 $142,100 70% 30% 66% Poplar Grove 1026 3,658 51% 28% 26% 44% 2.92 $40,133 $145,900 57% 43% 64% 1027.01 5,209 62% 29% 25% 46% 3.13 $35,465 $133,700 49% 51% 75% 1027.02 4,128 76% 29% 29% 32% 3.56 $33,359 $129,400 31% 69% 51% Salt Lake City All 194,188 26% 18% 11% 22% 2.45 $54,009 $266,800 48% 52% 46% Note: Cost-Burdened Renters spend 30% or more of monthly income on housing costs. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 129 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 These 10 Census tracts identified above as having some of the highest poverty levels in the City are generally located within RDA project areas. ARE THERE ANY COMMUNITY ASSETS IN THESE AREAS/NEIGHBORHOODS? Education Numerous schools are located in the target area, including the Dual Immersion Academy, the City Academy and Salt Lake Arts Academy. The Pete Suazo Business Center is also located in the area. Health Services There are 23 clinical services/programs offered in Glendale/Poplar Grove, provided by a host of clinics including Donated Dental, Friends for Sight, Concentra Urgent Care, the University of Utah Clinic, First Med and the Glendale/Mountain View Community Learning Center, among others. Eight programs providing health education were found in the neighborhood. These programs are offered through Communidades Unidas, Sunday Anderson Senior Center, Mexican Consulate, Glendale Senior Housing, and the Boys and Girls Club . A total of six mental health services w ere identified in West Salt Lake. Four of the six programs are family and school -based mental health counseling offered through Valley Behavioral Health. Cultural Arts The Sorenson Unity Center has a theatre and hosts performances within the community. Th e Utah Cultural Celebration Center has three different opportunities for youth specifically to enjoy ethnic performances as well as Shakespeare performances. Both venues also have art galleries that are open to the public. Community Centers and Gardens The Hartland Partnership Center is located in the Glendale Neighborhood. This center offers resources such as English language instruction, mental health support, citizenship classes, and employment workshops. There are several community gardens in the target area. These gardens provide an opportunity for community interaction and allow for households to grow their own produce. Of special note are the International Peace Gardens which presents gardens and festivals from around the world, as well as a Farmer’s Market and Seed Swap event. Parks, Recreation and Open Space One of West Salt Lake’s greatest assets is the abundance of parks and open space. Of Glendale and Poplar Grove residents, 83% live within a quarter mile of some form of green space. This is the highest percentage in the City. There are 14 parks, including the notable International Peace Garden, located in these neighborhoods and comprising over 100 acres. All green spaces are managed by Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands. The Jordan River Parkway offers outdoor boating opportunities. The Jordan River Parkway and 9 Line trails provide recreational opportunities and connectivity to natural environments. They also provide additional community connectivity and transportation options. Fitness 130 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Glendale/Poplar Grove neighborhoods, located within the target area, offer 77 total health and fitness programs. The largest facility is the Sorenson Multicultural Center which offers a wide variety of youth programs including aquatics. Two fitness centers are targeted for seniors – the Sunday Andersen Senior Center and the Westside Center. Public Transit The TRAX light rail line runs through the Ballpark and Poplar Grove neighborhoods. The light rail also runs within one block of the Central City neighborhood. These transit lines connect these neighborhoods to the rest of the Salt Lake Valley and allow for greater employment opportunities. Redevelopment Project Areas Redevelopment project areas cover the entire target area. This means that increment al tax revenues can be used to improve their respective project areas through a wide variety of projects including but not limited to infrastructure improvements (water, sewer, transportation, etc.), beautification, economic development incentives, façade renovation, grant funds, parks development, signage and wayfinding, etc. Specific objectives identified by the RDA for uses of funds within its existing project areas include: o Emphasize transit and connections to multi -modal transportation means o Create high-quality pedestrian environments o Promote infill development o Support high quality, diverse and affordable housing o Support public art in public places o Encourage innovative sustainability practices and limit carbon emissions o Promote transit-oriented development at key sites located at TRAX stations o Foster growth of small and new businesses o Participate in streetscape enhancements Opportunity Zones As shown in the map below, a large percentage of the target area is also located in an opportunity zone. Opportunity zones were established under the Investing in Opportunity Act as a way to revitalize economically-distressed communities using private investment. Tax benefits to investors include the deferral and reduction of tax gains, thereby making these zones more attractive to investors and increasing the potential of leveraging private funds with public investment. FIGURE MA-50.1 131 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SLC RDA PROJECT AREAS AND OPPORTUNITY ZONES MA-60 BROADBAND NEEDS OF HOUSING OCCUPIED BY LOW- AND MODERATE - INCOME HOUSEHOLDS – 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R BRAODBAND WIRING AND CONNECTIONS FOR HOUSHOLDS, INCLUDING LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND NEIGHBORHOODS. A dependable broadband network provides many benefits. These networks attract businesses, provide social connections, increase educational opportunities, and improve the quality of life for citizens. According to Broadbandnow.com/Utah, 11.6% of Utah residents are underserved by broadband service providers. However, most of these underserved communities are in rural areas of the state and only 0.6% Salt Lake County is reportedly underserved. While service is provided to most h ouseholds in Salt Lake County, that doesn’t mean all households can afford access to the internet. The 2018 ACS 5-year Estimate reported that there were 9,249 households in Salt Lake City without an internet connection. This represents almost 12% of the Ci ty’s households. A household which doesn’t have access to internet services through a broadband connection is at a significant disadvantage economically when seeking new employment and educationally if children or adults in the household are attending school. If these households are also low - or moderate-income households then a lack of internet connection could prove to be one of the largest barriers to economic growth for the household. 132 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R INCREASED COMPETIT ION BY HAVING MORE T HAN ONE BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER SERV E THE JURISDICTION. Competition is a basic economic principal that states that when there are multiple providers of a service then the prices of that service will be lower as the providers attempt to gain more market share through a more favorable price offered to the consumer. By providing more options, if a consumer feels they are being charged too much for a service then the consumer can look to an alternative provider. This movement in the market encourages providers to produce services at a competitive rate and protects consumers from unfair prices. MA-65 HAZARD MITIGATION – 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(2) DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S INCREASED NATURAL HAZARD RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. According to the Salt Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan the main natural hazards identified and investigated for Salt Lake County include: Earthquake Flood Wildland Fire Slope Failure Severe Weather Dam Failure Avalanche Pandemic Drought Infestation Radon Problem Soils Of these natural hazards, Salt Lake County identified Salt Lake City as being high risk for only earthquakes, floods, and wildfires while being at moderate risk for severe weather. DESCRIBE THE VULNERABILITY TO THESE RISKS OF HOUSING OCCUPIED BY LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF DATA, FINDINGS, AND METHODS. Many low- and moderate-income households would suffer a greater financial impact from these risks than other households as repairs from earthquake, severe weather, flooding, or wildfires could cause serious financial stress. This negative effect could be compounded if these households could not afford additional insurance coverage. The Salt Lake County Multi -Jurisdictional Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan iden tifies areas west of I-15 as a potential flood risk due to the Jordan River. In the plan, the area directly surrounding the Jordan River State Parkway is listed as a low - to moderate-risk with flood risk increasing at nearer proximity to the river. There i s also low-risk of flooding on the west side of the Rose Park neighborhood. These two flood areas are significant because they are areas with low - and moderate-income households. 133 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 134 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan identifies Salt Lake City’s priority needs and describes strategies that the City will undertak e to serve priority needs over a five-year period. The plan focuses on building Neighborhoods of Opportunity to promote capacity in low -income neighborhoods and to support the City’s most vulnerable populations. SP-05 OVERVIEW The 2020-2024 Strategic Plan is based on an assessment of community needs as identified in this Consolidated Plan, in City planning documents, and on the ability of federal funds to meet the identified needs. Within this context, the 2020-2024 Strategic Plan focuses on building Neighborhoods of Opportunity to promote capacity in low -income neighborhoods and to support the City’s most vulnerable populations. The five -year plan 135 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 provides a strategy for maximizing and leveraging the City’s block grant allocatio ns with other funding sources, including the City’s Redevelopment Agency, to build healthy and sustainable communities that connect and expand opportunities for housing, education, transportation, behavioral health services and economic development. Strategic plan goals call for Consolidated Plan funds to focus on the following: Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure access to continued stable housing Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for income eligible residents Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and end homelessness Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to su pporting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation Provide housing and essential services for persons with HIV/AIDS Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multim odal transportation options. Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit in target areas Support access to transportation prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas Build Community Resiliency Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability. Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low -income and vulnerable populations including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population Homeless Services To expand access supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring. Expand support for medical and dental care options for th ose experiencing homelessness 136 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services Behavioral Health To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis The City intends to leverage all potential funding resources to achieve its goals, recognizing the need to maximize participation from a variety of resources. The City has also established specific measurement criteria by which to measure its progress in meeting its goals. SP-10: GEOGRAPHIC PRIORITIES 91.215(a)(1) GEOGRAPHIC AREAS For the 2020-2024 program years, Salt Lake City has designated one local CDBG target area to concentrate and leverage funding to stimulate comprehensive neighborhood revitalization that expands housing opportunities, economic opportunities and neighborho od livability. Our selected target area corresponds with the City’s existing RDA project areas. If the RDA project areas change, the target area will adjust to continue to correspond to the RDA project areas. Throughout the duration of this Plan, the CDBG target area will represent any RDA project area. The combined RDA project areas were chosen as the target area for the following reasons: The RDA areas generally overlap the lower-income areas of the City and areas that scored lower on the Opportunity Index. The Opportunity Index measures 16 factors including education, health, environment, social, and economic that indicate the relative opportunity in various geographic locations. Tax increment funds are already being generated in RDA areas. While some fu nds are currently committed, there is the potential for additional tax increment revenues as new development occurs in these areas. These funds can then be spent within their respective RDA areas for a wide variety of purposes, including housing, beautific ation, revolving loan funds, public infrastructure, etc. Most of the RDA areas were established with a required, designated set -aside (usually 10-20%) for housing. This provides an opportunity to leverage other funds with RDA funding. Some of the redevelopment areas also included a finding of blight which indicates rundown conditions, with poor visual appearance. This is a deterrent to economic development and funding is needed to mitigate these conditions. The RDA areas overlap with designated Opportunity Zones and by design will see an increase in private market investments. FIGURE SP-10.1 WEST SIDE TARGET AREA 137 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 TABLE SP-10.1 LOCAL TARGET AREAS 1 Area Name CDBG Target Area Area Type West Side Target Area Revital Type Comprehensive Identify the neighborhood boundaries for this target area. Beginning at 2100 South and State Street, the Target Area follows the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency’s State Street Project Area’s eastern boundary going north until 900 South. It then continues north alon g State Street to 600 South. The boundary then continues west on 600 South to 500 West. It then goes north on 500 West to 300 North. The boundary continues west on 300 North to Redwood Road. It then continues south on Redwood Road until 2100 South. The boundary then continues east on 2100 South until it reaches State Street where it ends at the intersection of 2100 South and State Street. Include specific housing and commercial characteristics of this area 44% owner occupied The neighborhood poverty rate as determined by the ACS information within Census Block Groups within the area ranges from 4 to 38%. The block groups average a poverty level of 27% compared to 17.8% in Salt Lake City. 138 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 1 Area Name CDBG Target Area The average household size is 3.02, compared to 2.47 citywide. 36% of the area’s residents identify as Hispanic, compared to 22.3% of Salt Lake City. How did your consultation and citizen participation process help you to identify this neighborhood as a target area? Our Citizen Participation Plan included an online survey and public outreach with over 4,000 responses. Neighborhoods in the RDA areas consistently ranked high in the survey results. As such, Council prioritized the RDA areas in the most vulnerable sections of the City, resulting in the current West Side Target Area. Identify the needs in this target area. Many of the existing housing units are old and rundown. Therefore, rehabilitation of existing housing stock is key for this area. Poverty levels are higher in this area than in other areas of the City. A reduction in poverty levels could be accomplished through the encouragement of mixed - income housing. Improving streetscapes and the visual appearance of the area could also attract more mixed - income development. There is a lack of bus and rail lines i n large portions of the target area resulting in higher transportation costs for much of the target area. What are the opportunities for improvement in this target area? Opportunities exist to enhance business districts and neighborhood nodes to promote ec onomic development, job creation, and overall community revitalization. Several arterials cross through the target area with high traffic counts suitable for economic development that could bring jobs to these lower-income areas. Housing rehabilitation and the development of strategic mixed-income housing will promote housing stability and economic diversity within the target area. Are there barriers to improvement in this target area? Many residents do not speak English as their first language. High renter levels often make for a more transitory population with less investment in the community. GENERAL ALLOCATION P RIORITIES Locally-defined target areas provide an opportunity to maximize impact and align HUD funding with existing investment while simultaneously addressing neighborhoods with the most severe needs. According to HUD standards, a Local Target Area is designated to allow for a lo cally targeted approach to the investment of CDBG and other federal funds. The target area for the 2020-2024 program years has been identified in Figure SP-10.1. CDBG and other federal funding will be concentrated (not limited) to the target area. Neighb orhood and community nodes will be identified and targeted to maximize community impact and drive further neighborhood investment. On an annual basis, internal city divisions/departments including the Redevelopment Agency, Salt Lake City Transportation, and Economic Development will strategize if specific areas of the CDBG target area are in need of additional focus/resources as it relates to CDBG eligible projects. This type of flexibility will ensure that the focus within the target area can move around as per the needs of the community. Activities will be coordinated 139 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 and leveraged, and can include an increase of marketing and outreach for housing programs, transportation improvements, and commercial façade improvements. FIGURE SP-10.2 TARGET AREA AND SLC NEIGHBORHOODS Source: Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Target Areas The Target Area was identified through an extensive process that analyzed local poverty rates, low - and moderate-income rates, neighborhood conditions, citizen input, and availab le resources. A recent fair housing equity assessment (May 2018) completed by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah states that there is a housing shortage in Utah, with the supply of new homes and existing “for sale” homes fallin g short of demand. While the impact of higher housing prices is widespread, affecting buyers, sellers, and renters in all income groups, the report concludes that those households below the median income, and particularly low -income households, are disproportionately hurt by higher housing prices. In fact, households with incomes below the median have a 1 in 5 chance of a severe housing cost -burden, paying at least 50% of their income toward housing, while households with incomes above the median have a 1 i n 130 chance.50 50 James Wood, Dejan Eskic and D. J. Benway, Gardner Business Review, What Rapidly Rising Prices Mean for Housing Affordability, May 2018. 140 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Targeting area resources are necessary to expand opportunity for the West Side Target Area as well as the impacted RDA Project Areas. The following area ways that investments will be realized: Concentrating resources geographically will provide a way to help stabilize and improve distressed areas in these neighborhoods. Connectivity between the target area and other areas of the Salt Lake Valley will reduce transportation costs and reduce financial burdens on households. Neighborhood and/or community nodes will be targeted for commercial façade improvements, public transit enhancements and amenities that support non -motorized modes of transit. Economic development and transportation projects can be located throughout the target area. Housing rehabilitation projects can be located throughout the City, with a focus on the target area. Support to microenterprises and for-profit businesses can be offered to qualified business across the City, however, additional focus and marketing efforts will o ccur within the target area. In an effort to expand community engagement in the local target area, HAND will reach out to residents, business owners, property owners, community councils, non -profit organizations, and other stakeholders to gather input on housing and community development needs. City departments and divisions will collaborate to leverage resources and efforts within the target area. HAND and the Department of Economic Development will create an inventory of eligible commercial buildings to target for façade improvements and/or interior code deficiencies and will engage property owners and entrepreneurs in outreach efforts. RATIONAL E FOR THE PRIORITIES F OR ALLOCATING INVEST MENTS GEOGRAPHICALLY Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, along with internal and community stakeholders, identified the target area through an extensive process that included data analysis, identification of opportunities/barriers, a citizen survey, and an evaluation of potential resources. Through this process, the RDA neighborhoods were identified as areas where a concentration of resources would make significant impacts within the community. This approach would also allow for ongoing leveraging of resources and efforts in these areas. Of particular importance is to direct resources to expand opportunity within areas where poverty levels are higher. According to HUD, neighborhoods of concentrated poverty isolate residents from the resources and networks needed to reach their potential and deprive the larger community of the neighborhood’s human capital. In another study, it was found that there were significant physical health improvements from reducing concentrated areas of poverty.51 Opportunity zones are also located within the target ar ea. This affords an opportunity to further leverage private investment within these economically -distressed areas. Opportunity zones attract private capital because of the ability to defer and reduce taxes associated with capital gains. The tax savings tha t can be realized are significant. Only 46 geographic areas in Utah have been designated as opportunity zones by the federal government, making these highly attractive sites. Further, other funding resources, such as low -income housing tax credits (LIHTC) and tax increment can also be realized in these zones, making for extremely competitive investment opportunities in areas that were previously overlooked. Salt Lake City intends to expand opportunity within the target areas to limit intergenerational pove rty, increase access to community assets, facilitate upward mobility, and provide safe, affordable housing. 51 Third Way, Moving to Opportunity: The Effects of Concentrated Poverty on the Poor, August 2014. 141 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SP-25 PRIORITY NEEDS 90.215(a)(2) Salt Lake City has determined the following priority needs after broad stakeholder outreach and analysis of community needs: TABLE SP-25.1 PRIORITY NEEDS 1 Priority Need: Homeless Services Priority Level High Population Extremely low-income Homeless large families Homeless families with children Unaccompanied youth Homeless individuals Elderly Chronic homeless Mentally ill Chronic substance abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons with disabilities Survivors of domestic violence Geographic Areas Affected Citywide Associated Goals Goal: Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Focus Areas: Expand medical and dental care programs Increase outreach programs Support homeless resource centers & emergency overflow operations Provide essential supportive services including case management for homeless Description Support the operating cost of homeless resource centers, day centers, emergency sheltering systems, and supportive services for the homeless. Increase access to critical health systems such as medical and dental care. Increase case management support for those working directly with homeless populations. Basis for Relative Priority According to the 2019 Point-in-Time Count, Salt Lake County has 1,844 homeless individuals, 193 of whom are unsheltered. Results of the Citizen Online Survey and public outreach with over 4,000 responses listed this as the top priority . PRIORITY NEEDS 142 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 2 Priority Need: Affordable Housing Priority Level High Population Extremely low-income Low-income Moderate-income Large families Families with children Elderly Public housing residents Released jail inmates Refugees Geographic Areas Affected Citywide Associated Goals Goal: Provide Expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying housing stock within neighborhoods. Focus Areas: Preserve and rehabilitate existing, aging affordable housing stock through improving the condition of housing throughout the City Support anti-displacement strategies, prioritizing the target area identified in the plan. This may include strategies such as supporting Community Land Trust programmi ng, historic preservation and others. Improve and expand the affordable housing stock including lifecycle housing, including special needs housing, elderly, and ADA accessible housing. As applicable, this should explore the ability to place housing in high opportunity areas and/or within walking distance of transit stations Increase homeownership opportunities Provide rent assistance to emphasize stable housing Provide housing and essential supportive services for persons with HIV/AIDS Description Provide loans, grants, and other financial assistance for the acquisition, preservation and development of affordable rental and homeownership opportunities. Provide financial assistance to stabilize low -income renters and homeowners. Explore and support strategies that ensure long-term affordability. Evaluate the relationship of housing and transit as a way of reducing overall housing costs. Basis for Relative Priority According to the 2017 ACS data, 45.6% of Salt Lake City renter households and 25.5% of households with a mortgage are cost- burdened, spending over 30% of their monthly income on housing costs. 22.3% of renter households spend over 50% of their monthly income on housing.52 Families who are cost- 52 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates 143 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 2 Priority Need: Affordable Housing burdened have limited resources for food, childc are, healthcare, transportation, education, and other basic needs. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently administers Housing Choice (Section 8) vouchers for 3,000 households, with 5,188 households on the waiting list. Countywide there are 15,981 households on a Housing Choice waiting list. A family on the waiting list can expect to wait 6 years before receiving a Housing Choice voucher. Between 2000 and 2018, the cost of housing increased significantly for both renters and homeowners. The median contract rent increased by 81.8% and home values increased 89.8%. During the same time period, the median household income only increased by 52.6%. Since incomes did not keep up with increases in housing costs, it has become more difficult for residents to buy or rent a home. The homeownership rate decreased from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018. Results of the Citizen Online Survey and public outreach with over 4,000 responses listed this as the top priority PRIORITY NEEDS 3 Priority Need: Transportation Priority Level High Population Extremely low-income Low-income Moderate-income Large families Families with children Elderly Persons with disabilities Geographic Areas Affected Citywide (Public Service) & CDBG Target Area (Infrastructure) Associated Goals Goal Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options Focus Areas: Provide increased access to and cost assistance for public transportation services for vulnerable populations Install bus stop improvements, including coordination with multi - modal transit needs – limited to CDBG Target Area Improve bus stop shelters and sidewalk access to transit to increase mobility, especially for persons in wheelchairs or with disabilities – limited to CDBG Target Area Install bike racks and stations in key areas to encourage alternative modes of transportation – limited to CDBG Target Area 144 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 3 Priority Need: Transportation Description Support improvements to transit that will improve affordability and increase access and safety Basis for Relative Priority Transportation services ranked high on the citizen participation survey and public outreach that received more than 4,000 responses. Annual household transportation costs are high in much of the target area. PRIORITY NEEDS 4 Priority Need: Build Community Resiliency Priority Level High Population Extremely low-income Homeless large families Homeless families with children Unaccompanied youth Homeless individuals Elderly Chronic homeless Mentally ill Chronic substance abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Survivors of domestic violenc e Geographic Areas Affected Citywide Associated Goals Goals: Provide tools to increase economic and/or housing stability Focus Areas: Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that increase economic mobility Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating commercial buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population Description Expand opportunities for individuals and households living in poverty or in the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Activities include servic es to expand accessibility to employment opportunities, improve and enhance small businesses, promote access to early childhood education, expand the availability of digital technologies, and reduce food insecurities. 145 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 4 Priority Need: Build Community Resiliency Basis for Relative Priority As our community faces challenges that hinder economic mobility, education, access to technology and increase food insecurity. Service providers, industry experts, data analysis, community members, and elected officials all agree that providing support for these efforts will enhance community resiliency as we look to improve access to critical services, rebuild from national, state or local emergencies. PRIORITY NEEDS 5 Priority Need: Behavioral Health Services to Expand Opportunity and Self - Sufficiency Priority Level High Population Extremely low-income Homeless large families Homeless families with children Unaccompanied youth Homeless individuals Elderly Chronic homeless Mentally ill Chronic substance abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of domestic violence Refugees Geographic Areas Affected Citywide Associated Goals Goal: Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Focus area: Provide supportive services such as treatment, case management and counseling to expand opportunity and self -sufficiency for vulnerable populations Support programs that provide connections to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs Description Expand opportunities and counseling services for individuals with behavioral health issues. Activities include counseling and treatment services for opioid and other substance abuse and mental health issues. Basis for Relative Priority Stakeholder meetings, City departments and public feedback from an online survey and public outreach with over 4,000 responses prioritized behavioral health issues as there is an apparent link between behavioral health issues, homelessness, and the ability to maintain housing and sustain employment. 146 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SP-30 INFLUENCES OF MARKET CONDITIONS 91.215 (a)(2) Market Characteristics that will influence the use of funds available for housing type : As the needs assessment and market analysis have demonstrated, just over 22,500 Salt Lake City households are cost-burdened, spending 30% or more of their monthly income on housing (including ut ility costs) and are in need of housing that is affordable. Of these households, just over 10,000 households are severely cost - burdened, spending more than 50% of their monthly income on housing. These households are at risk of homelessness. Market conditions influencing the production, rehabilitation, and assistance of affordable housing are as follows: Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Incomes are not keeping up with rising rental costs. The median income rose 52.6% between 2000 and 2018 while rent rates increased by 81.8% over the same time period. Based on CBRE’s Real Estate Market Outlook 2019, vacancy rates are low (4.0%) placing upward pressure on rents. Strong population growth is also projected to continue, placing additional pressure on rents. Salt Lake County average monthly rents have increased from an average of $1,087 per month in 2017 to $1,153 in 2018. Market conditions have increased demand for Housing Choice vouchers, which currently have a gap of approximately 6,177 units for low -income households. Research also indicates that there is a lack of affordable units in close proximity to service providers to assist at - risk populations with housing and other needs. In addition, there is a need for additional partnerships between affordable housing landlords, property, and social services organizations. TBRA for Non-Homeless Special Needs Low rental vacancy rates and incomes not keeping up with rising rental costs lead to increasing housing cost - burden rates and very high demand for Housing Choice vouchers. There is a gap of approximately 10,000 units for severely cost-burdened households. Funds are also needed for transitioning participants with HOPWA - funded housing to other housing subsidies and affordable housing units in closer proximity to transportation and essential services. There is a need for additional partnerships between affordable housing landlords, property managers, and social service organizations. New Unit Production According to CBRE’s Real Estate Market Outlook 2019, “the market continues to expand at an above-average rate, adding a record 7,467 units along the Wasatch Front during 2018 (a growth rate of 4.6%). Approximately 6,244 units were slated for 2019. As rental rates rise, the question of rental affordability is of top concern. Renters coming from more expensive Tier 1 markets will continue to absorb many of these new units, and many locals will not be accustomed to paying higher rates. Rental rates are pushing upward due to a variety of factors including a construction industry stretched thin due to labor supply issues and rising costs. In addition to increasing construction costs, land costs are also rising, thereby driving up rents even further. This results in increasing cost-burden rates, very high demand for Ho using Choice (Section 8) vouchers, and a gap of approximately 10,000 units for severely cost -burdened households. There is a need for additional partnerships between affordable housing developers/providers, property managers and social service organizations. Additional affordable units are needed in high -opportunity neighborhoods as well as units in close proximity to transportation and essential services. Rehabilitation Lower interest rates have somewhat improved the cost of construction and home ownershi p. However, many low-income households are still unable to qualify for loans for home ownership or home improvement 147 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 financing. The share of elderly homeowners is projected to increase as the median age increases in the Salt Lake Valley. Salt Lake City has an older housing stock, with about 30.1% of units built prior to 1940. Older housing stock located in concentrated areas of poverty and RDA project areas are at risk for deterioration. Incomes are not keeping up with rising costs. Affordable units are at r isk of being replaced with newer housing stock or that with revitalization the rents will convert to market rate. Stabilization of existing housing in the target area is imperative. Acquisition, Including Preservation According to CBRE’s Real Estate Market Outlook 2019, a robust market performance resulted in a historic $1.4 billion in multifamily sales across the Wasatch Front. Salt Lake City is increasingly viewed as a preferred, Tier 2 market. CAP rates have stayed low, suggesting confidence in the mul tifamily market outlook. The strong rental market-rate rental market shows the increasing need to preserve affordable rentals, as converting substandard rental housing to market-rate can be very desirable for property owners. SP-35 ANTICIPATED RESOURCE S 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City’s funding year 2020-2024 CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA allocations are estimated to be a total of $25,000,000 estimating an average of $5,000,000 per year. In addition, Salt Lake City anticipates recei ving program income of $7.5 million during the same time period, with an estimated average of $1.5 million of program income available to spend each year. HUD allocations will be utilized to address the growing housing and community development needs with in Salt Lake City. However, funding has declined over the past decade, making it more difficult to address needs and overcome barriers. Over the course of the 2020 -2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City will coordinate and leverage HUD allocations to assis t the City’s most vulnerable populations, increase self -sufficiency and address needs in the geographic target area. TABLE SP-35.1 ANTICIPATED RESOURCES Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,400,000 $0 $35,000 $3,435,000 $13,600,000 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily 148 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $850,000 $300,000 $0 $1,150,000 $4,600,000 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation, program income is typically generated from housing loan repayments from nonprofit agencies Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA E S G Administration $290,000 $0 $2,500 $292,500 $1,160,000 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation amount Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re-Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $430,000 $0 $15,000 $445,000 $1,720,000 Amount for remainder of 149 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Permanent Housing in Facilities Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation amount Permanent Housing Placement STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA OT H E R : HO U S I N G – TR U S T F U N D Acquisitions $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust Fund has a budget of $2m and expects to receive a total of approximately $3m in revenue over the next plan period. Administration Conversion and Rehab for Transitional Housing Homebuyer Rehabilitation Housing Multifamily Rental New Construction Multifamily Rental Rehab New Construction for Ownership Permanent Housing in Facilities Rapid Re-Housing Rental Assistance TBRA Transitional Housing OT H E R PR O G R A M IN C O M E All CDBG Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000 Salt Lake City Housing Programs – Program Income All HOME Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules 150 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total OT H E R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T L O A N FU N D Economic Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000 The fund currently has a balance of approximately $4m. EXPLAIN HOW FEDERAL FUNDS WILL LEVERAGE THOSE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES (PRIVATE, STATE, AND LOCAL FUNDS), INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF HOW MATCHING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE SATISFIED: Match Requirements HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is also a way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with combining sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes. HOME Investment Partnership Program – 25% Match Requirement Salt Lake City will ensure that HOME match requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its subrecipients. Funding sources used to meet the HOME match requirements include federal, state, and local grants; private contributions; private foundations; United Way ; local financial institutions; City General Fund; and unrestricted donations. Emergency Solutions Grant – 100% Match Requirement Salt Lake City will ensure that ESG match requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its subgrantees. Fundin g sources used to meet the ESG match requirements include federal, state, and local grants; private contributions; private foundations; United Way; Continuum of Care funding; City General Fund; in -kind match and unrestricted donations. Fund Leveraging Leverage, in the context of the City’s four HUD programs, means bringing other local, state, and federal financial resources in order to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. Resources for leverage include the following: Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers 151 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and Housing Connect currently administer Housing Choice (Section 8) vouchers. The City projects the local housing authorities will receive approximately $173.6 million in funding during the plan p eriod to support public housing units. Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the LIHTC program gives State and local LIHTC -allocating agencies the equivalent of nearly $8 billion in annual budget authority to issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing targeted to lower -income households. Federal 4% and 9% tax credits are a major funding source of capital for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental homes. In 2019, the Agency allocated $10,900,317 in Federal and State Housing Credits.53 At the current funding level, approximately $55 million will be available for low-income homebuyer programs to dev elopers to build or renovate affordable apartment housing products over the course of this Plan. New Market Tax Credits New Market Tax Credits are an additional tool utilized to attract private capital investment in areas in need of job growth and economi c development. RDA Development Funding The RDA has 12 project areas, nine of which are currently collecting tax increment. Tax increment funds are required to be reinvested back into the same “project area” from which funds are generated and to contribute to the overall health and vitality of the City. The purpose of an RDA is to reverse the negative effects of blight, while increasing the tax base from which the taxing entities draw their funds. The RDA generated $33,833,404 in tax increment receipts in 2018. The RDA generally uses a 2% annual growth rate for existing project areas. State legislation governing RDAs require that 20% of tax increment receipts is set aside for the creation or preservation of affordable housing. A portion of those funds can be used in the CDBG Target Area. In addition, in 2019 the following two additional project areas will commence generating tax increment for the RDA: o Stadler Rail CRA: $180,750 o Northwest Quadrant: $18,873 Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Salt Lake City’s Housing Trust Fund strives to address the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s citizens by providing assistance for affordable and special needs housing within the City. The Trust Fund has a 2019 budget of $7,400,023. Salt Lake City Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) The City administers the Economic Development Loan Fund which makes loans to small businesses located in the City for the purpose of stimulating economic development and commercial and industrial diversity by enhancin g business opportunities, providing employment and promoting neighborhood revitalization. This fund currently has a cash balance of approximately $4.0m and loans outstanding of $5.6m. Salt Lake City General Fund 53 https://www.novoco.com/sites/default/files/atoms/files/utah_2019_lihtc_awards_2019.pdf 152 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The City uses excess general funds for homeless services when such funds are available, and opportunities present themselves. The City has allocated $2.5M of resources for homeless services in fiscal year 2020. Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund Utah State’s Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund is one of th e largest affordable housing loan funding tools for affordable housing developers working in Salt Lake City. The loan fund had about $14 million available in fiscal year 2020. Industrial & Commercial Bank Funding Although it is not possible to estimate how much Community Reinvestment Act funding will be made available locally, there are a large number of industrial and commercial banks that reside in Salt Lake City and that have requirements to invest in low -income areas. Continuum of Care Funding The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (Continuum of Care) provides approximately $7.8 million of annual funding for local homeless housing and service programs. Foundations & Other Philanthropic Partners Charitable establishments and philanthropic p artners make up a critical part of the funding stream used in the State of Utah. It is estimated that during the Consolidated Plan period, over $100m will be used to support low - and moderate-income residents, with a considerable amount of the funding being used in Salt Lake City. IF APPROPRIATE, DESCRIBE PUBLICLY-OWNED LAND OR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THAT MAY BE USED TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN: Salt Lake City intends to expand affordable housing and economic development o pportunities through the redevelopment of City -owned land, strategic land acquisitions, parcel assembly, and disposition. As per City ordinance, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division will work collaboratively with other City divisions that oversee or control parcels that are owned by the City to evaluate the appropriateness for affordable housing opportunities. DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City will continue to seek other federal, state, and private funds to leverage entitlement grant funding. The City has already shown its commitment to leveraging funding through the selection of the target area which matches the current RDA areas. In addition, the City will support the proposed community development initiatives outlined in this Plan through strategic ini tiatives, policies, and programs. SP-40: INSTITUTIONAL DE LIVERY STRUCTURE 91-215(k) Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its Consolidated Plan including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions. TABLE SP-40.1 INSTITUTIONAL DELIVERY ORGANIZATIONS 153 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served Advantage Services, Inc. Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs, Homeless services Region Alliance House Non -profit organization Affordable housing: rental Region Asian Association of Utah Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region ASSIST, Inc. Non -profit organization Affordable housing: ownership Region Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Boys and Girls Club of Salt Lake Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Catholic Community Services Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Community Development Corp of Utah Non -profit organization Affordable housing: ownership State Community Health Centers Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Crossroads Urban Center Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Disability Law Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region English Skills Learning Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Family Promise of Salt Lake Non -profit organization Homelessness Region Family Support Center Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region First Step House Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Guadalupe School Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Helping Hands Association dba The Haven Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region House of Hope Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Housing Authority of Salt Lake City PHA Public housing, affordable housing: rental Jurisdiction Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake PHA Public housing, affordable housing: rental Region Utah Law Related Education Project Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs State Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Literacy Action Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Neighborhood House Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Jurisdiction 154 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served NeighborWorks Salt Lake CHDO Affordable housing: ownership, economic development Region Odyssey House Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region People Helping People Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Rape Recovery Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region Road Home Non -profit organization Homelessness Region Salt Lake City Department of Community and Economic Development Departments and agencies Affordable housing, neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Department of Public Services Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Planning Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Economic Development Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Engineering Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division Departments and agencies Affordable housing, neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Parks and Public Lands Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Streets Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Division of Transportation Departments and agencies Neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund Government Affordable housing: homeownership, rental Jurisdiction Salt Lake City RDA Redevelopment authority Affordable housing, neighborhood improvements Jurisdiction Salt Lake City School District Other Non -homeless special needs Jurisdiction Salt Lake Community Action Program Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Salt Lake and Tooele Continuum of Care Continuum of Care Homelessness Region Salt Lake Donated Dental Services Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Sarah Draft Home Non -profit organization Affordable housing; home ownership Region Sorenson Unity Center Government Non -homeless special needs Jurisdiction Utah AIDS Foundation Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region 155 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served Utah Food Bank Non-profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs State Utah Health and Human Rights Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs State Utah Homeless Management Information System Government Homelessness, non - homeless special needs State Utah Housing Corporation Other Affordable housing homeownership, rental State Utah Non -Profit Housing Corporation Non -profit organization Affordable housing: rental Region Utahns Against Hunger Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Valley Behavioral Health Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs State Volunteers of America (VOA) Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Wasatch Community Gardens Non -profit organization Neighborhood improvements Region Wasatch Homeless Healthcare – 4th Street Clinic Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region Welcome Home Salt Lake City Government Home ownership City YMCA Non -profit organization Non -homeless special needs Region YMCA Non -profit organization Homelessness, non - homeless special needs Region ASSESS STRENGTHS AND GAPS IN THE INSTITUT IONAL DELIVERY SYSTEM Community needs are efficiently and effectively addressed through the knowledge, commitment, and resources of a broad range of partners. By working closely with governmental partners and private organizations, Salt Lake City is able to carry out an institutional delivery structure that emphasizes collaboration and resource leveraging. Public services for Salt Lake City’s homeless and extremely low -income population are delivered through a network of integrated public -private partnerships. Coordination meetings are regularly held to manage service delivery for individuals and families that have multiple and complex problems that require comprehensive services form more than one organization. Coordination meetings are also utilized to streamline services and prevent the duplication of efforts. A significant institutional delivery barrier is that financial resources limit the amount of services provided in the community. Many service providers have long wait lists. Salt Lake City is working with community partners to prioritize and restructure services to utilize funding resources more eff ectively. TABLE SP-40.2 AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES TARGETED TO HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH HIV 156 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Homelessness Prevention Services Available in the Community Targeted to Homeless Targeted to People with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X X X Legal Assistance X Mortgage Assistance X X Rental Assistance X X X Utilities Assistance X X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X X X Mobile Clinics X X Other Street Outreach Services X X X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X Child Care X X Education X X Employment/Employment Training X X Healthcare X X X HIV/AIDS X X X Life Skills X X X Mental Health Counseling X X X Transportation X DESCRIBE THE EXTENT TO WHICH SERVICES TARGETED TO HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH HIV AND MAINSTREAM SERVICES, SUCH AS HEALTH, MENT AL HEALTH AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES ARE MADE AVAILABLE T O AND USED BY HOMELESS PERSONS (PARTICULARLY CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIV IDUALS AND FAMILIES, FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH) AND PERSONS WITH HIV WITHIN THE JURISDICTION. Fourth Street Clinic, dba Wasatch Homeless Healthcare, is an AAAHC Patient Centered Medical Home that provides coordinated medical, mental health, substance abuse, case management, dental, and pharmacy services. It provides the primary medical services to the homeless community. Other organizations such as Donated Dental provide complimentary services. In 1985, the Utah Department of Health reported a total of 17 persons living with AIDS in Utah. At that time, the state and most citizens were unprepared to address the HIV/AIDS issue. The need for public information and for assistance for persons living with HIV/AIDS forced a community -based response, which ultimately became the Utah AIDS Foundation (UAF). Today, a two -fold approach of direct client services and targeted prevention education still comprises the basis for all UAF programming. UAF works with Clinic 1A to ensure that those diagnosed with HIV/AIDS are connected to medical case management, housing case management, employment opportunities, and other services. Valley Behavioral Health, formerly known as Valley Mental Health, provides services to all residents in Salt Lake County (including those who are experiencing homelessness) that experience serious mental illnesses, substance use disorders and behavioral problems. Valley Behavioral Health operates Safe Haven and Salt Lake Valley Storefront. Located at 550 W 700 S Salt Lake City, Safe Haven is a permanent supportive housing program for those that meet Valley Behavioral Health’s client criteria. Salt Lake Valley Storefront is a day center at Safe Haven and is solely for those experiencing serious mental illnesses. 157 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The State of Utah’s Department of Workforce Services has an employment center co -located at the Weigand Day Center. This offers those using services on Rio Grande or meals at St. Vincent DePaul’s Dining Hall, a chance to connect with employment without traveling. Founded in 1958, First Step House is a co -occurring capable, behavioral health treatment and housing provider. First Step is a Joint Commission-accredited organization and is a consistent leader in the Salt Lake metro area delivering evidence-based interventions and achieving positive outcomes for individuals, Veterans, and families experiencing substance use disorders, homelessness, mental health conditions, justice system involvement, and primary health concerns. First Step operates two residential treatm ent facilities, two outpatient treatment centers, and six transitional housing facilities in Salt Lake County. The scope of services includes substance use disorder, criminogenic, and mental health assessment and referral, residential and outpatient treatm ent, recovery residence services, transitional housing, case management, employment support, primary health care, peer support services, and long-term recovery management. Odyssey House of Utah focuses on addiction recovery services through both in -patient and out-patient programs. Programs are available for both adults and teens. Other programs serving our community include Volunteers of America Cornerstone, which provides substance use treatment for low -income and homeless individuals. In addition, Volu nteers of America has two detox programs including Adult Detox and Center for Women and Children. Both serve low -income, homeless individuals or families. DESCRIBE THE STRENGT HS AND GAPS OF THE SERVICE DELIVERY SYST EM FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION AND PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE SERV ICES LISTED ABOVE. Homeless services organizations within the Salt Lake and Tooele Counties Continuum of Care work diligently to coordinate services and place people in housing. Local or ganizations participate in HMIS, managed by the State of Utah. Through HMIS, service providers are able to view other services their clients access and coordinate on a client-by-client basis. The local CoC also uses the VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool) form in the annual Point -in-Time count. By using the VI-SPDAT at first contact, the clients can be connected to services quicker and receive help sooner. However, there are always improvements that can be made in coordinating activities. Meetings with stakeholders revealed concerns that case management loads were too large and that reductions were necessary for better coordination and provision of services. So, while coordination occurs, there is often a high lev el of demand for services in comparison to the availability of needed treatment and services. PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE STRATEGY FOR OVE RCOMING GAPS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM FO R CARRYING OUT A STRATEGY TO ADDRESS PRIORITY NEEDS. The Salt Lake and Tooele Counties Continuum of Care continues to implement coordinated access based on the VI-SPADT form. Salt Lake County is leading efforts to coordinate services for the homeless with the end goal of providing homeless services as seamlessly as possible. 158 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SP-45: GOALS In consideration of priority needs and anticipated resources, Salt Lake City has defined the following five -year goals: TABLE SP-45.1 G OALS, PRIORITY NEEDS AND OUTCOME INDICATORS Sort Order Goal Start Year End Year Category Geograp hic Area Priority Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 - Housing Expand housing options 2020 2024 Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing CDBG $ 6,000,000 ESG $343,750 HOME $2,500,000 HOPWA $1,940,000 5075 Households assisted 2 – Transportation Improve access to transportation 2020 2024 Transportation Target Areas/Cit y Wide Transportation CDBG $4,000,000 100,300 Households assisted 3 – Community Resiliency Increase economic and/or housing stability 2020 2024 Economic Development/Pu blic Services Target Areas/Cit y Wide Community Resiliency CDBG $1,250,000 325 Individuals or businesses assisted 4 – Homeless Services Ensure that homelessness is brief, rare, and non-recurring 2020 2024 Public Services/Homele ss Services Citywide Homeless Services CDBG $1,000,000 ESG $825,000 2050 Persons assisted 5 – Behavioral Health Support vulnerable populations experiencing substance abuse and mental health challenges 2020 2024 Public Services/Behavio ral Health Citywide Behavioral Health CDBG $500,000 400 households assisted 6 – Administration Administration 2020 2024 Administration Citywide Administration CDBG $3,200,000 ESG $103,125 HOME HOPWA $60,000 N/A TABLE SP-45.2 G OAL DESCRIPTIONS Goal Name Goal Description 1 Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeted rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within the neighborhoods Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for qualified residents Support programs that pr ovide access to home ownership Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and/or end homelessness 159 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Goal Name Goal Description Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs Provide housing and essential supportive services to persons with HIV/AIDS 2 Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. Within eligible target areas, improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit Within eligible target areas, expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation Support a ccess to transportation, prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations 3 Community Resiliency Provide tools to increase economic and/or housing stability Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that increase economic mobility Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating commercial buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses Direct financial assistance to for -profit businesses Expand access to early chil dhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population 4 Homeless Services To expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency Overflow Operations Provide support for programs undertaking outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services 5 Behavioral Health To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis 6 Administration To support the administration, coordination and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA programs. ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME, LOW-INCOME, AND MODERATE - INCOME FAMILIES TO WHOM THE JURISDICTION WILL PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS DEFINED BY HOME 91.315(B)(2): 160 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Over the course of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the City anticipates that CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA funds will provide affordable housing and housing subsidy assistance as follows: Housing Rehabilitation: 1,000 Households Direct Financial Assistance to Home Buyers: 100 Households Tenant-Based Rental Assistance/Rapid Re-housing: 2,800 Households Homeless Prevention: 500 Persons SP-50: PUBLIC HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY AND INVOLVEMENT 91.215(c) NEED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE UNITS (IF REQUIRED BY A SECTION 504 VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT) The local housing authorities are in compliance with the Section 504 Voluntary Compliance agreement. Activities to Increase Resident Involvement: Monthly tenant meetings Tenant association meetings with both City and County tenants Salt Lake County Aging Services has a center located on site at high rise HACSL has a Resident Advisory Board that has representatives from public housing (including the high - rise), Section 8, and special needs programs. A member of the Resident Advisory Board is appo inted to the Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners. IS THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY DESIGNATED AS TROUBLED UNDER 24 CFR PART 902? No. The Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City are both designated as high performers. SP-55: STRATEGIC PLAN BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING 91.215(h) As discussed in detail in section MA -40, the most critical public policy barriers (direct and indirect) to the production and preservation of affordable housing include the foll owing: Economic Conditions Housing costs have risen more quickly than incomes over the past 10 years Transportation costs are significantly higher in some neighborhoods than others due to a disparity in the availability of transit and distance from employ ment centers Land Regulations and Permitting Process Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance (similar to other cities) contains regulations that establish standards for residential development including minimum lot size, density, unit size, height, setback, and parking standards. Some of these regulations can inhibit the ability for affordable housing development feasibility (i.e., profitability), including the following: o Density limitations o Lack of multifamily zoning o Stringent parking requirements (reducing cost feasibility) 161 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The process to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing is reportedly difficult to navigate for some developers Permitting and environmental review processes are often time consuming and reduce possible profits for developers, thereby discouraging development and/or encouraging development of higher -margin product (i.e., market-rate units) Land Costs High land costs in certain areas do not allow for adequate profit in the development of lower -income housing product, particularly in desirable neighborhoods that have experienced growth and new construction over the past decade. Most affordable land is located on the west side of Salt Lake City, furthering the concentration of affordable housing in select areas, and inhibiting the dis persal of housing options throughout the city Land costs restrict the ability to place affordable housing in closer proximity to necessary services, particularly near transit options and employment centers. Consequently, new housing often is constructed in areas that result in high percentages of income being spent towards transportation. Ultimately, these developments further increase traffic issues Construction Costs Construction costs, particularly labor costs, have experienced notable fluctuations in t he recent past. This has caused upward pressure on rents, and limited what type of product developers are able to provide. Consequently, the profit margin in providing affordable housing is typically limited, or altogether non-existent without the presence of incentives and tax credits Rehabilitation of existing product has increased in cost due to overall labor shortages. Furthermore, the gained value of improvements is often not more than the costs of construction, resulting in limited or no profit for undertaking such renovation. This limits the desire to undertake such endeavors unless incentives can be provided Development and Rehabilitation Financing Affordable housing projects with complex layered finance structures can experience increased land holding costs because of additional due diligence and longer timelines. This is partially alleviated with City incentive programs that reduce some financing pressures There is strong competition for local funding tools, such as the State of Utah’s Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund Neighborhood Market Conditions Negative public perception and community opposition (“NIMBYism”) can limit affordable housing development when a zoning approval process is required Some neighborhoods that have access to transit options d o not have the appeal for large-scale housing developments, due primarily to low -quality surrounding improvements, higher crime rates, and limited employment diversity The City’s recently completed Growing Salt Lake City: A Five -Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 provides the following goals to remove barriers to affordable housing: Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high -opportunity housing market Includes reforming City practices, such as land use and zoning regulations, as well as impediments in City processes Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost-burdened households 162 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Prioritizes stabilizing very low -income renters, the development of more affordable units and increased home ownership opportunities Goal 3: Build a more equitable city Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination and promote a diversity of housing throughout all areas of the City Other strategies employed by the City include the following: Homeless Strategies Coordinating with local service providers, municipalities, State of Utah, Continuum of Care, and others through the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness in an effort to create a system by which resources, services, data collection, and analysis results in coordination among all stakeholders. Growing SLC: A Five-Year Plan The City has formally adopted a new housing plan that will begin to address many of the barriers listed above and catalyze partners in the city and region to focus on the current housing crisis. Th e plan provides an assessment of citywide housing needs, with emphasis on the availability and affordability of housing, housing needs for changing demographics, and neighborhood -specific needs. The updated plan will serve as a five -year policy guide to address housing needs across the economic and demographic spectrum of Salt Lake City’s current and future residents. Affordable Housing Initiative The City is committed to providing a comprehensive housing initiative to address Salt Lake City’s lack of housing options affordable to low -wage workers and moderate-income families, persons with disabilities and those on fixed incomes. By utilizing the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund and other community resources, the City will support the preservation, develop ment, and rental assistance of housing units over the time period of the Consolidated Plan. The initiative will target these forms of assistance to extremely low -income renter households as well as expanding homeownership and housing opportunities for low - to middle-income families and individuals. Community Land Trust Salt Lake City has launched a Community Land Trust (CLT) that will allow donated and trusted land to maintain perpetual affordability while ensuring the structure on the land, the home, is p urchased, owned, and sold over time to income-qualifying households, just as any other home would be. By holding the land itself in the trust, the land effectively receives a write down each time the home is sold, insulating the property for growing land c osts but still allowing equity to be built by the homeowner. Blue Ribbon Commission This commission was tasked with identifying how the City can fund and produce 1,000 units of affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City. This commission has since been s un-setted, but the efforts of creating affordable housing through the mechanisms identified continue to move forward. Welcome Home Salt Lake City Salt Lake City initiated a new homeownership program, Welcome Home SLC, which is aimed at increasing housing options for low- and moderate-income households. It will help stabilize communities, provide incentive for neighborhood investments, and allow families to build wealth. Leverage Public Land Promote affordable housing development by leveraging public reso urces with private investments. Potential tools include the following: 163 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Development of affordable housing on publicly -owned land Utilize proceeds form development of publicly -owned land to fund affordable housing Create a policy for prioritizing affordable housing uses when disposing of public land. Impact Fee Exemption The City’s recently completed Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan, 2018-2022 recommends that impact fees could be reduced by a decision-making body that reviews project transactions and th at could only be accessed by developers who commit to a percentage of units at a specific level of affordability. Funding Our Future In 2018, the City Council approved a 0.5% sales tax increase to address several important issues within the City including transportation, housing, infrastructure, and public safety. This is estimated to provide an estimated $5 million additional sales tax revenues to support housing needs each year. Revenues may be shared between development efforts and supporting affordabl e housing program efforts. Redevelopment Agency Salt Lake City’s Redevelopment Agency committed $17 million to address affordable housing efforts, with a third of that targeted to areas where the City has experienced high land costs. SLC Housing Trust Fund The Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund was created in 2000 to provide financial assistance to support the development and preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake City. Eligible activities include acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multifamily rental properties and single -family homeownership. Additional assistance relating to housing for eligible households also may include project or tenant-based rental assistance, down payment assistance and technical as sistance. Applications for funding can be accepted year-round and are approved through a citizen’s advisory board, the Mayor and the City Council. Funding Targeting The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division continually evaluates ways to coordinate and target affordable housing subsidies more effectively, including: Coordinate local funding sources – Olene Walker, SLC Housing Trust Fund, County partnerships Target soft money to housing units affordable to households with lower AMIs Target soft money with low or no interest loans. Policies Salt Lake City will work to remove or ameliorate public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing through the following efforts: Affordable Housing Development Incentives: Zoning and fee waiver incentives will be implemented and/or strengthened, including the following: Refine the Impact Fee Exemption Ordinance to improve user friendliness and refine the range of application. Evaluate the accessory dwelling unit ordinance for a broader range of application. Evaluate the transit station area zoning district regulations for a broader range of affordability requirements and potentially expand the use of that zone. Evaluate the feasibility of density bonuses and other development incentives for affordable housing development and preservation, specifically in Historic Landmark Districts where it is particularly difficult to add housing. Review the City’s Fee Schedule to eliminate added fees for developers of affordable housing. Review the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance to ensure that the city’s stock of inexpensive housing isn’t rapidly being replaced by more expensive units. 164 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Leverage Public Resources for Affordable Housing Development: Public resources, including C ity- owned land, will be leveraged with private resources for affordable housing development. · Funding Targeting: The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division is evaluating ways to coordinate and target affordable housing subsidies more effectively, to include the coordination of local funding sources (Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Salt Lake County funding, etc). Utilize the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund: Funding is focused on acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multifamily rental properties and single-family homeownership. Additional assistance relating to housing for eligible households also may include project or tenant based rental assistance, down payment assistance and technical assistance. The City has been very successful in spending down the Trust’s funds over FY17-18 and is resulting in an increased number of affordable units being built in the city. Applications for funding can be accepted year-round and are approved through a citizen’s advisory board, the Mayor and the City Council. Implement Fair Housing Action Items: Salt Lake City will work to remove and/or ameliorate housing impediments for protected classes through action items as identified in the City’s 2015- 2019 Fair Housing Action Plan. Utilize Federal Funding to Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities: Utilize CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funding to expand housing opportu nity through homeowner rehabilitation, emergency home repair, acquisition/rehabilitation, direct financial assistance, tenant -based rental assistance, project- based rental assistance, and rapid re-housing. In addition to the Action Items listed above, the City aims to tackle some of the larger problems behind the lack of affordable housing – mainly the lack of a living wage. One way the City is addressing this issue is through strategic targeting of its CDBG funds to programs that provide job training for vulnerable populations or to organizations that create economic development opportunities. SP-60: HOMELESS STRATEGY 91.215(h) REACHING OUT TO HOME LESS PERSONS (ESPECIALLY UNSHELTERED PERSONS) AND ASSESSING THEIR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS. Salt Lake City’s primary homeless services goal is to help homeless individuals and families get off the street and eventually into permanent housing. In the short term, Salt Lake City will continue to provide collaborative services to the homeless population. Salt Lake City rec ognizes that not every homeless individual is alike and because of that, there is no one size fits all solution. There are groups of chronic homeless individuals, veterans, families, women with children, youth, and homeless-by-choice in the greater communi ty. Each of these groups has different needs and each stage of homelessness must also be considered. The four stages of homelessness are prevention (keeping people from dropping into homelessness with jobs and affordable housing), homelessness (helping wit h daily needs – lockers, showers, etc.), transcending homelessness (finding housing, employment), preventing recurrence (offering supportive services to housing). If the four stages are not considered for each group, efforts will eventually be unsuccessful . Personalized one-on-one outreach to homeless individuals providing information about the specific services that individual needs (e.g., housing, mental health treatment, a hot meal) is the most effective outreach approach. Salt Lake City works regularly wi th various community partners that provide outreach and assessment of individuals experiencing homelessness including Catholic Community Services; Volunteers of America, Utah; the Department of Veterans Affairs; The Road Home and others. In 2016, Salt Lake City opened the Community Connection Center (CCC) located in the primary homeless services area of the City. The CCC operates as a drop - in center and employs social workers that assess individuals’ needs and help connect people with available 165 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 housing and supportive services. The CCC has been successful in filling the need for additional homeless outreach and case management services in the City. The Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) is also beginning a new pilot program. When available, while respon ding on a call with a person experiencing homelessness, SLCPD will bring with them a social worker to engage with the client and help assess their service needs and connect them to services. ADDRESSING THE EMERGENCY SHELTER AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING NEEDS OF HOMELESS PERSONS. Starting with the State of Utah’s Ten -Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, most efforts to deal with homelessness in Utah rely on the Housing First model. Although the ten - year plan has sunset, the programs and direction are still being implemented throughout the State. The premise of Housing First is that once homeless individuals have housing, they are more likely to seek and continue receiving services and can search for employment. The Housing First model has been effective in Sa lt Lake City, though meeting the varied housing needs of this population can be challenging. The homeless housing market needs more permanent supportive housing, housing vouchers, affordable non -supportive housing, and housing located near transit and services. Salt Lake City is working towards new solutions in these areas as outlined in the City’s newly - adopted housing plan, Growing SLC. There is a continued need for day services to meet the basic needs of persons experiencing homelessness. Needed daytim e services include bathrooms, laundry, safe storage for their life’s belongings, mail receipt, and an indoor area to “hang out.” Salt Lake City addresses these issues by supporting shelters, day services, and providing a free storage program. Furthermore, Salt Lake City has constructed two new homeless resource centers that will provide emergency shelter and housing -focused supportive services. This shift in how homeless services are provided will help the community realize our goal that homelessness is rar e, brief, and non-recurring. Moving forward, Salt Lake City will aim to assist homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. The City plays an important role by providing strategic funding for the valuable efforts un dertaken by other stakeholders and, at times, filling in gaps in essential services. The City can also lend its voice and political weight to lobby for changes in policy, regulation, and statutes as needed to facilitate a comprehensive and effective approach to addressing homelessness and related issues. Salt Lake City’s newly adopted housing plan, Growing SLC, includes efforts to provide affordable housing options along the spectrum of housing including permanent supportive housing, transition in place, tenant based rental assistance, and affordable non -supportive housing. Shelter the Homeless, Collective Impact to End Homelessness Steering Committee, and the Salt Lake City Continuum of Care voted in support of merging these two entities into a new homel ess system structure called the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. This Coalition’s primary goals are to prevent and end homelessness in the Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it moves forward. HELPING HOMELESS PERSONS (ESPECIALLY CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES, FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND 166 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH) MAKE THE TRANSITION TO PERMANENT HOUSING AND INDEPENDENT LIVING, INCLUDING SHORTENING THE PERIOD OF TIME T HAT INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES EXPERIE NCE HOMELESSNESS, FACILITATING ACCESS FO R HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES TO AFFORD ABLE HOUSING UNITS, AND PREVENTING INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WHO WERE RECENT LY HOMELESS FROM BEC OMING HOMELESS AGAIN. Salt Lake City and its service partners work with homeless individuals to help them successfully transition from living on the streets or shelters and into permanent housing or independent living. The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness’s primary goals are to prevent and end homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collectio n, analysis, and coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it moves forward. The City’s recently completed Growing Salt Lake City: A Five -Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 provides the following goals to remove barriers to affordable housing: Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high -opportunity housing market Includes reforming City practices, such as land use and zoning regulations, as well as impediments in City processes Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost -burdened households Prioritizes stabilizing very low -income renters, the development of more affordable units and increased home ownership opportunities Goal 3: Build a more equitable city Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination and promote a diversity of housing throughout all areas of the City Coupling along with Growing Salt Lake City, in 2018 City Council and the Mayor increased the sales tax by .5% in an effort to create funding streams to address several critical needs within the City. Once such need is affordable housing. Through this mechanism, it is anticipated that over $2m of fun ding will be available each year to support low -income individuals and families access to affordable housing. Among other housing needs, funds will be used to support access of permanent housing opportunities for those that are exiting homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless. HELPING LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AVOID BE COMING HOMELESS, ESPECIALLY EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AND THOSE WHO ARE: BEING DISCHARGED FROM PUBLICLY FUNDED INSTITUTIONS AND SYSTE MS OF CARE (SUCH AS HEAL TH CARE FACILITIES, MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES, FOSTER CARE AND OTHER YOUTH FACILITIES, AND CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONS); OR, RECEIVING ASSISTANCE FROM PUBL IC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES THAT ADDRESS HOUSING, HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES, EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, OR YOUTH NEEDS The City’s recently completed Growing Salt Lake City: A Five -Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 provides the following goals to remove barriers to affordable housing: Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high -opportunity housing market 167 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Includes reforming City practices, such as land use and zoning regulations, as well as impediments in City processes Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost -burdened households Prioritizes stabilizing very low -income renters, the development of more affordable units and increased home ownership opportunities Goal 3: Build a more equitable city Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination and promote a diversity of housing throughout all areas of the City Coupling along with Growing Salt Lake City, in 2018 City Council and the Mayor increased the sales tax by .5% in an effort to create funding streams to address several critical needs within the City. Once such need is affordable housing. Through this mechanism, it is antic ipated that over $2m of funding through Funding Our Future will be available each year to support low -income individuals and families access affordable housing. Among other needs, funds will be used to identify and support households that are at risk of lo sing housing due to a variety of reason, including but not limited to eviction for non -payment, those that are precariously housed, those that are in fact at risk of becoming homeless, but do not meet HUD’s definition of homeless, or that are in a judicial process in which mitigation and resolution is possible. Salt Lake City, along with other organizations in the Salt Lake Continuum of Care, work to prevent and divert individuals and families from experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake Count y and the State of Utah all provide funding to Utah Community Action for short -term rental assistance to families at risk of falling into homelessness. Salt Lake City is reducing and ending homelessness in the community through strong collaborations with partner organizations throughout the Salt Lake Continuum of Care. Salt Lake City works closely with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and service providers to stop families from dropping into homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals and famil ies experience homelessness, help individuals and families successfully transition out of homelessness, and keep individuals and families from rescinding back into homelessness. The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness’s primary goals are to prevent and end homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it moves forward. SP-65: LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARDS 91.215(i) Because a high percentage of the housing units in Salt Lake City were built before 1978, outreach and education efforts about lead-based paint must continue. As such, the City has implemented a plan to address lead issues in our residential rehabilitation projects. The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program is in compliance with HUD’s rules concerning identification and treatment of lead hazards. During the 2018 -2019 program year, Salt Lake City worked in conjunction with our partners on the state and county levels to educate the public on the dangers posed by lead based paint, including the following: Undertake outreach efforts through direct mailings, the Salt Lake City website, various fairs and public events, and the local community councils. Provide materials in Spanish to increase lead -based paint hazard awareness in minority communities. Partner with Salt Lake County’s Lead Safe Salt Lake program to treat lead hazards in the homes of children identified as hav ing elevated blood levels. Emphasize lead hazards in our initial contacts with homeowners needing rehabilitation. 168 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Work with community partners to encourage local contractors to obtain worker certifications for their employees and sub-contractors. HOW ARE THE ACTIONS LISTED ABOVE RELATED TO THE EXTENT OF LEAD POISO NING AND HAZARDS? Our efforts over the last five years have resulted in a significant increase in the number of children being tested for elevated blood-lead levels. This has been made possible th rough improvements in testing technology which has allowed the City to better detect and protect children and their family members who might be living in a hazardous environment. The percentage of children testing positive has continued to remain below 1% despite the action level for blood-lead levels has been reduced from 10 mcg/dl to 5 mcg/dl. Through our rehabilitation and outreach efforts, we hope to continue to maintain these low testing levels and continue to protect our children from dangerous living conditions. HOW ARE THE ACTIONS LISTED ABOVE INTEGRATED INTO HOUSING POL ICIES AND PROCEDURES? The abatement of lead in Salt Lake City’s existing housing stock is an important component of addressing fair housing impediments for low -income families with c hildren. It is a policy of Salt Lake City’s Housing Rehabilitation program, as well as other housing programs funded through the City’s federal entitlement block grants, to employ safe work practices when working to identify and abate lead -based paint in households. SP-70: ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY 91.215(j) JURISDICTION GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES FOR REDUCING THE NUMBER OF POVERTY-LEVEL FAMILIES Similar to cities across the country, Salt Lake City is faced with growing income inequality and must address poverty in our community. The limited incomes of many Salt Lake City residents have left them with insufficient means to meet an adequate standard of living – especially in light of the massive increase in housing, transportation, health care, and many other critical need costs. In a strategic effort to reduce the number of households living in poverty and prevent households from falling into povert y, Salt Lake City is focusing on a multi-pronged approach: 1. Identify strategic opportunities to build capacity, prevent displacement, and expand resources within the target area that align with other large-scale community investment. 2. Support the City’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless individuals and families, those facing behavioral health concerns, persons living with HIV/AIDS, disabled, and the low -income elderly. The City’s anti-poverty strategy aims to close the gap in a number of socioeconomic indicators, such as improving housing affordability, stabilizing households that may be at risk of losing their housing, deploy anti - displacement strategies, increase employment skills of at -risk adults, access to transportation for low -income households, and support behavioral health programs. Efforts will focus on the following objectives: 169 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Assist low -income individuals to maximize their incomes. Expand housing opportunities. Ensure that vulnerable populations have access to supportive services. Evaluate the use of anti -displacement strategies and access to high opportunity areas. Increase access to public transit systems for vulnerable populations. Federal entitlement funds allocated through this Consolidated Plan will support the City’s anti -poverty strategy through the following: Provide job/vocational training for vulnerable populations. Provide essential supportive services for vulnerable populations. Provide housing rehabilitation for low -income homeowners. Expand affordable housing opportunities. Improve neighborhood/commercial infrastructure in target areas. Provide transportation amenities that support multi -modal transportation. Increase access to public transit systems for vulnerable popu lations. HOW ARE THE JURISDICTION’S POVERTY REDUCING GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES COORDINATED WITH THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN: Anti-poverty efforts outlined in this plan will be leveraged with other City plans, programs, initiatives and resources to undertake a comprehensive approach to reduce the occurrence of poverty within Salt Lake City. City programs and initiatives that support anti -poverty efforts include, but are not limited to, the following: Growing SLC : A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 Affordable Housing Rehabilitation and Development Rental Assistance Programs Direct Financial Assistance Programs Economic Development Loan Fund SP-80: MONITORING 91.230 DESCRIBE THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES TH AT THE JURISDICTION WILL USE TO MONITOR ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN AND WILL USE TO ENSURE LONG-TERM COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAMS INVOLVED, INCLUDING MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PL ANNING REQUIREMENTS. To ensure compliance from the start of a project or program, the Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) Division uses the application process to start the monitoring process of all agencies. Each application must go through an extensive review process that includes a risk analysis of pr oposed activities and ensures that each applicant meets a national objective and that the organizational goals are aligned with the goals identified in the City’s Consolidated Plan. Once the applications pass the initial review, each application is taken through an extensive public process, with the final funding decisions being made by our City Council. At that time, contracts are drawn up that identify governing regulations, scope of work, budgets and any other Federal requirements and local requirement s of the grant. Once fully executed contracts are in place, HAND’s Capital Planning staff are responsible for 170 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 monitoring the agencies through the life of the contract. The agencies are monitored for compliance with the program regulations as well as the content found in the City contracts. To ensure sub-grantees are aware of program requirements, each agency that was awarded funds received an invitation to attend a mandatory grant training seminar. This seminar allows HAND staff to reiterate Federal regulations, provide guidance on changes for the upcoming grant year, identify Federal funding concerns, and review expectations of the agencies. The City requires that at least one attendee from each agency come to the training. Each person attending the train ing seminar receives a handbook that contains important information including contacts, website links, timelines, and a list of documents that are required to be submitted to the City annually. Agencies that were unable to attend do have the ability to rec eive training documents if they contact the City. The City operates all CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA grants on a reimbursement basis. This ensures that desk reviews, an important part of monitoring, can be completed before federal funds are utilized for any program or project. A desk review was completed for every reimbursement request. This allowed HAND staff to ensure that all requirements of the contract and federal regulations were actively being met prior to disbursing any funds or drawing funds from HUD’s Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). The IDIS system also helps to assist with program/project eligibility requirements, track spending rates and report performance measurements. During the program year, the HAND staff works together with sub-grantees to ensure Federal regulations are followed. This ensures consistent communication between staff and agencies and reduces confusion. Through the use of a Risk Analysis, coupled with reporting mechanisms, the Division Director and HAND st aff are able to determine which agencies would benefit from a technical training session, and which agencies need to have an on-site monitoring visit. The agencies that score highest typically have a monitoring visit during the following program year. As per Federal regulations, select agencies from each program (CDBG, ESG, HOME & HOPWA) are monitored on an annual basis. Because it is a HAND policy that each reimbursement request receives a desk review prior to funds being disbursed, it is a straightforward process to monitor compliance throughout the term of the contract. In addition to desk reviews, tailored guidance is given throughout the year via telephone and email conversations. Many of the agencies receiving funding were for programs that have recei ved grant funds over a long period of time and had no substantial changes to their programs. As such, the City focused its efforts on new agencies needing technical assistance, and on working with veteran agencies and their performance measurements to ensure better data quality for outcomes. Agencies receiving Tenant Based Rental Assistance funding are highly encouraged to place clients in multifamily units that meet the City Housing standards. It is the City’s requirement that all residential rental units must have a current City business lic ense. These units are regularly inspected as per City Ordinance. However, it is also our understanding that some clients may not be housed in multifamily units for one reason or another. In an effort to ensure safe, decent housing, a process exists whereby a Landlord may self-certify that the unit meets City Housing Code. Outside of the City’s incorporated boundaries, agencies must follow local housing ordinances. In these instances, a Housing Quality Standard Inspection form must be in the client’s file. All inspections and housing standards must be met prior to the clients moving into their units. HAND staff provides year-round technical assistance via phone, email and when needed, in person. This technical assistance provides the agencies with an opport unity to evaluate programs, policies and practices in a low stress environment. Continued technical assistance ensures compliance with federal regulations. 171 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Technical assistance and monitoring visits reveal that, in general, our agencies have well documen ted processes and are quick to contact the City when questions arise. If deficiencies are identified and agencies will work quickly to adjust processes as necessary and move forward with stronger programs. The City encourages citizens to become active in their communities, providing feedback to the City about how their neighborhoods could be improved, how funding should be prioritized, and address safety concerns. 174 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 APPENDIX A: 2020-2024 FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN Salt Lake City is dedicated to affirmatively furthering the purposes of the Fair Housing Act to ensure equal access to rental and homeownership opportunities for all residents. Through the efforts identified in the 2020-2024 Fair Housing Action Plan, Salt Lake City will continue to collaborate with our partners to enforce federal, state, and local laws that prohibit housing discrimination based on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, age, parental status, or marital status. In addition, the City will address practices and policies that have the effect of limiting housing choice for protected classes. As part of a larger network of fair housing stakeholders, Salt Lake City will work toward a future where everyone has an equitable and affordable place to call home. ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS In 2014, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Utah completed a comprehensive analysis of fair housing on both a regional and city level with a grant from HUD. Salt Lake City continues to use the 2014 data due to the fact that there are no significant changes to the data, nor significant changes to the methods to address the impediments identified. However, the City will continue to work collaboratively with community members, data experts, and local municipalities if additional data comes forward. The Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Fair Housing Equity Assessment provide an analysis of the following: • Patterns of segregation • Racial and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty • Disparities by race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability in access to housing and community assets, including education, transit, and employment This Analysis of Impediments builds on that prior study and focuses on current areas of impediments. Between 2013 and 2018, The Fair Housing Program of the Disability Law Center (DLC) of Utah conducted fair housing testing for the purpose of uncovering rental housing discrimination directed towards protected classes. This program serves Salt Lake City and all areas of Utah to ensure that an individual’s housing rights are upheld and that micro or systematic discrimination is not present. ACTION PLAN Salt Lake City has utilized the regional analysis of impediments, fair housing equity assessment, and data gathered through the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan planning process to identify impediments to fair housing choice that disproportionately affect members of protected classes. The following Action Plan provides an overview of fair housing impediments and provides action items to remove or ameliorate each impediment. Impediments can be direct or indirect, created by both public sector and private sector actions, and have been divided into the following categories: 1. Discrimination in Housing 2. Mobility and Access to Opportunity 3. Availability of Affordable and Suitable Housing 4. Zoning, Land Use Regulations and Redevelopment Policies 5. Fair Housing Coordination and Knowledge 175 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 1. Discrimination in Housing As a HUD-funded recipient Salt Lake City does not discriminate in housing or services on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, familial status, religion, or sex, as well as protected classes covered under state and local regulations. The City works to eliminate discriminatory practices and ensure equal housing opportunities for all. Even with the City’s efforts to eliminate discriminatory practices, fair housing equity assessments have, on occasion, found discriminatory practices. Impediment: Unfair Lending Practices A contrast of mortgage denials and approvals exists between racial and ethnic populations in Salt Lake County. The mortgage application denial rate for Hispanics (20%) in Salt Lake City is higher than that of non-Hispanics (13%).1 Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Expand homeownership opportunities by continuing to target the City’s Low and Moderate-Income Homebuyer program, as well as other direct financial assistance programs funded through CDBG and HOME, to racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, single-parent households, and large families. II. Collaborate with community partners, including community development organizations, religious institutions, employment centers, and housing counseling agencies to support education programs on bank products and services, financial management, and homebuyer counseling. Programs should be offered in English and Spanish, as well as other languages as needed. III. Work with local lenders, financial institutions, and real estate institutions to build awareness on fair housing laws and practices. IV. Support the Disability Law Center’s fair housing testing efforts directed at private market real estate practices Impediment: Rental Discrimination The Fair Housing Program at Utah’s Disability Law Center serves people from all protected classes (race, color, ethnicity, sex/gender, religion, disability, familial status) and not just people with disabilities. Utah law also protects against discrimination based on source of income, sexual orientation and gender identity. The program serves Salt Lake City and is intended to ensure that an individual’s housing rights are upheld and that micro or systematic discrimination is not present. The Disability Law Center helps ensure that people who belong to protected classes have equal access and opportunity to rent or own homes and apartments in their communities. This work includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Ensuring that landlords and property owners do not discriminate in renting or selling property • Making sure that housing is accessible to people with disabilities to the extent required by law • Advocating to increase the amount of accessible, affordable, and integrated housing • Providing fair housing trainings for providers, landlords, and consumers of housing • Conducting fair housing testing to ensure that landlords are complying with fair housing laws • Enforcing fair housing laws through administrative and judicial complaint processes 1 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 176 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Disability Law Center has uncovered rental housing discrimination directed toward protected classes. The Center conducts tests with matched pairs of individuals, couples, or families. Testers are matched on rental eligibility characteristics so that the only significant difference between them is the factor being tested. • On average, approximately 300 calls a year to the Disability Law Center originate from Salt Lake City residents. • Data on fair housing testing from the Disability Law Center, the most common rental housing discrimination in Salt Lake City are primarily based on disability status, national origin, and race. • Data collected from 2013 to 2018 showed 97 cases of confirmed disparate treatment and signs of disparate treatment, regarding housing discrimination in Salt Lake City. During this period there were a total of 1,078 reports of people who felt they had been discriminated against. Of those, 456 total required short-term assistance and instructions on how to advocate for what they need on their own or required referrals to other legal agencies. • In 2019 Approximately 40 of the total calls were elevated to case level. Of those, the Disability Law Center successfully mediated directly with landlords on behalf of tenants. • Approximately 150 fair housing tests per year are completed by the Disability Law Center, with about 25% of the total having some sort of housing discrimination red flag. Examples of the incidents around rental housing discrimination, all of which are illegal, verified by the Disability Law Center testing are: • Landlords requesting tenants to waive HIPAA rights to verify their disabilities. • Requiring extra deposit fees for service animals. • Landlords wanting to visibly identify a person’s severity of disability to determine if they should rent to them. • When an Arabic sounding name was given to a landlord, the landlord wanted to see the potential tenant before deciding to rent to them. • Potential tenants of color being told to pay higher deposits and higher monthly rents compared to white potential tenants. • Potential renters of color being told there are no apartments available when white potential renters are told there are several available to them that day. • Different move in specials given to white applicants over applicants of color. Such as free parking spaces, or being offered apartments closer to amenities. Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Utilize the Good Landlord program to educate landlords and property managers on fair housing laws and requirements; II. In partnership with the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division and the Disability Law Center, the Apartment Association, utilize the Mayor’s Office of Diversity and Human rights to provide educational programming on tenant rights and fair housing; III. Refer victims of housing discrimination to the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division and the Disability Law Center to process fair housing complaints. 2. MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY Fair housing choice provides that members of protected classes are able to choose a residence that offers access to opportunity including essential services, transit, quality schools, job opportunities, and healthy 177 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 communities. As the map below demonstrates, there are differences in access to transit based on neighborhood. The Center for Neighborhood Technology tracks an overall transit score for municipalities based on trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit. The central parts of the City score highly by this standard but, as shown in Figure 1, some areas with lower incomes, such as the Glendale, Poplar Grove, and Rose Park neighborhoods, score lower in the transit scores as transit lines are not as accessible in these neighborhoods. FIGURE 1 Source: The Center for Neighborhood Technology, AllTransit, 2019 It is Salt Lake city’s goal to expand housing opportunity within neighborhoods by increasing economic diversity and addressing spatial disparities and impediments. Mobility and opportunity impediments are as follows: Impediment: Racial and Ethnic Segregation Figure 2 shows a breakdown of the City’s census tracts by their reported poverty level as it pertains to the reported minority population within the tracts. It shows that the tracts directly west of I-15 have some of the highest concentrations of minorities who are also living below the poverty level. 178 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FIGURE 2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates Racial and ethnic segregation in Salt Lake City developed due to a multitude of factors, including the housing market, neighborhood preferences, land use policies including zoning, demographics, and economic conditions. Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Expand affordable housing opportunities throughout the City to increase housing choice for protected classes. Housing opportunities should include rental and homeownership, with a focus on housing to accommodate large families. Salt Lake City will support mixed-income opportunities through the following efforts: a. Utilize funding resources, including HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Housing Trust Fund, and other funding sources to provide financial assistance for the development of housing that economically diversifies neighborhoods. b. Support zoning and land use policies that allow and/or incentivize affordable housing development in areas with high opportunity. 179 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 c. Build public-private partnerships to leverage public resources with private capital to support housing development in areas with high opportunity. Impediment: Access to Opportunity As Figure 3 demonstrates, the opportunity index is considerably higher on the east side of Salt Lake City as compared to the west side of the City and the area surrounding I-15. FIGURE 3 High opportunity areas are geographical locations within the city that provide conditions that expand a person’s likelihood for social mobility. These areas have been identified through an analysis of quality-of life indicators, homeownership rate, poverty, cost-burdened households, educational proficiency, unemployment rate, and labor force participation. With these multiple indicators, a single composite, or standardized, score is calculated for each census tract. Scores may range from 1 to 10, with 1 indicating 180 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 low opportunity and 10 indicating high opportunity. A census tract with a standardized score above that of the citywide average shall be designated as an Area of Opportunity. Salt Lake City contracted with the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Institute to develop and annually update the city’s Areas of Opportunity data. FIGURE 4 Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Expand access to opportunity in RDA project areas by demographically and geographically targeting CDBG funding to support economic development, transportation improvements, anti-displacement strategies, and other anti- poverty programs. 181 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 II. Improve housing stability in RDA Project Areas by increasing outreach and education regarding the availability and use of CDBG and HOME funding for housing rehabilitation. III. Utilize federal and local funding in distressed and at-risk neighborhoods for strategic housing development to catalyze private investment, improve housing quality, and promote occupancy at a range of household incomes. 3. AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE AND SUITABLE HOUSING A regional lack of affordable housing disproportionately impacts protected classes. Prot ected classes are especially impacted by a lack of rental housing affordable to households at 50% AMI and below, large family households, and disabled person households. Housing stock impediments are as follows: Impediment: Rental housing affordable to households at 50% of AMI and below A housing gap analysis found a citywide shortage of 6,177 affordable rental units for households earning less than $20,000 per year. About 37 percent of the City’s renter households earned less than $20,000 in 2018, with only 11 percent of the rentals in the city in their affordability range. The limited availability of housing affordable to households at 50% AMI and below have disproportionally impacted racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and large families. Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Promote development of housing units, including permanent supportive housing units, affordable to households earning 50% AMI and below by leveraging public and private investments. City-owned land can be used to leverage private investment for affordable and supportive housing development. II. Utilize the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund/Housing Trust Development Fund, and HOME Development Fund to develop housing affordable to households targeted to households at 50% AMI or below. The Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund was created by the Mayor and City Council in 2000 to provide financial assistance to support the development and preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake City. Eligible activities include acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multi-family rental properties and single- family homeownership. Additional assistance relating to housing for eligible households may include project or tenant-based rental assistance, down payment assistance and technical assistance. The HOME Development Fund was created as a reaction to the increasing housing costs and difficulty in deploying HOME funds. It’s uses align with federal regulations and are targeted to acquisition, new construction, rehabilitation, and homeownership opportunities. The funds may be used for single family units as well as multi-family units. III. Strengthen incentives for the development of affordable housing. Incentives might include inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, fee reductions, fee waivers, land subsidies, and limited property tax exemptions. Strategies may also include disposition of city-owned land for the use of affordable housing development, interest rate discounts, and below market sales. 182 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 IV. Salt Lake City has several affordable housing projects currently planned which are expected to add 476 affordable units in the near future. These projects are listed in the table below. TABLE 1: FUTURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS Impediment: Rental housing for large families With an increasing share of minorities, particularly Hispanic and refugee/New American families who on average have larger household sizes, there is a higher demand for the low supply of rental options with enough bedrooms to accommodate large families. However, the supply of rental units with 4 or more bedrooms has been diminishing, while the supply of units with 2-3 bedrooms has been increasing. TABLE 2: PERCENT OF RENTAL UNITS BY SIZE Unit Size 2013 2018 No Bedroom 5% 8% 1 Bedroom 38% 36% 2 or 3 Bedrooms 36% 50% 4 or More Bedrooms 21% 6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Utilize Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Housing Trust Development Fund, CDBG, and HOME funding to prioritize the development and preservation of affordable large units (three or more bedrooms). II. Encourage the geographical dispersal of affordable large bedroom units throughout the City to expand housing choice. Prioritize affordable housing development for families in neighborhoods that provide access to opportunities, including jobs, public transportation, education, and public amenities. Impediment: Housing for Disabled Persons More long-term, stable housing is necessary to address the needs of disabled populations. Disabled populations can experience several barriers in accessing housing and supportive services, includin g housing discrimination, cognitive abilities, lack of documentation, coordination of resources, substance abuse, and instability. As such, accessibility modifications, behavioral and medical services, and other supportive services are necessary to address the needs of disabled populations. In addition, more Project Address Affordable Units AMI Expected Completion Exchange A 340 East 400 South 104 50% 2020 Centro Civico, Casa Milagro 145 South 600 West 49 50% 2020 Bookcliffs Lodge 1159 South West Temple 43 50% TBD First Step House, Phase II / 5th East Apts. 434 South 500 East 75 30% 2020 Pamela’s Place / Ribbon Properties 525 South 500 West 100 30% 2020 First Step House, Phase III / 426 Apts. 426 South 500 East 40 30% 2021 Magnolia 175 South 300 East 65 30% TBD Total 476 183 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 residential and transitional housing opportunities are required to address the needs of extremely low- income persons with chronic alcohol and substance addictions. Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Prioritize CDBG funding for housing programs that provide accessibility modifications to low-income homeowners. II. Prioritize the development and preservation of affordable housing units that meet fair housing accessibility guidelines, with focus on rental housing affordable to households at 50% AMI and below. II. Prioritize CDBG funding for supportive housing programs targeted to disabled populations. 4. ZONING, LAND USE REGULATIONS, AND REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES Land use regulations can prevent the development of affordable housing and an equitable distribution of housing types throughout all areas of the City. Impediment: Zoning and land use regulations can restrict possibilities for affordable housing, thereby limiting housing choice for protected classes. As a large rental city, Salt Lake City has a considerable amount of multifamily zoning. As such, Salt Lake City provides a broad range of housing types for households with a wide range of incomes. However, many of the City’s neighborhoods are zoned for single-family use and prohibit multi-family housing. These neighborhoods are often considered to be high opportunity by offering quality schools, low crime rates, public amenities, and economic opportunities. As housing affordability continues to decline in Salt Lake City, the inadequate supply of affordable housing will increasingly impact protected classes. Such disparities will compound if zoning limits affordable housing development through the following: • Limitations on the siting of group homes • Limitations on the siting of accessory dwelling units • Minimum single-family lot sizes • A lack of multifamily zoning in census tracts with low poverty rates Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Provide zoning incentives to encourage affordable housing development throughout the City; II. Revise zoning to more broadly allow mixed-income, multi-family, and affordable residential uses; III. Broaden the range of explicitly permitted residential uses for vulnerable populations, especially for supportive housing, group homes, and others; 5. FAIR HOUSING COORDINATION AND KNOWLEDGE Salt Lake City is committed to promoting fair housing through education and coordination. Producers, consumers, and providers of housing need to have adequate fair housing knowledge to promote best practices. In addition, coordination needs to occur between local municipalities to effectively ameliorate fair housing impediments at the regional level. 184 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Impediment: Lack of reginal fair housing coordination between municipalities, service providers, and other fair housing stakeholders. Several impediments to fair housing choice are shared across municipalities in Salt Lake County. The most effective mitigation to these common impediments is a coordinated approach by all of the jurisdictions in the region. Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Salt Lake City will continue to participate in the Utah Fair Housing forum which includes representatives from HUD’s Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Disability Law Center, the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor division, representatives from various Utah entitlement cities, and fair housing advocacy groups. II. Salt Lake City will participate and promote with community partners all regional Fair Housing training, conferences, and Fair Housing Design and Construction training. Impediment: Fair housing knowledge does not reach all producers, consumers, and p roviders of housing, which results in a lack of understanding, misconceptions, and violations of fair housing laws. Fair housing cannot become a high priority for our community without increased awareness on fair housing rights and responsibilities. Increased awareness needs to occur for all fair housing stakeholders, from producers to consumers of housing. Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Promote fair housing rights and responsibilities through Salt Lake city’s annual workshop for CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA subgrantees. II. Distribute fair housing literature in multiple languages through various outreach events and through the City’s website. III. Utilize the good Landlord program to educate landlords and property managers on fair housing laws and requirements. IV. In partnership with the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division and the Disability Law Center, utilize the Mayor’s Office of Diversity and Human Rights to provide educational programming on tenant rights and fair housing. V. Collaborate with community partners, including community development organizations, religious institutions, employment centers and housing counseling agencies to support education programs on bank products and services, financial management, and homebuyer counseling. Programs should be offered in English and Spanish, as well as other languages as applicable. 185 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Impediment: Language barriers faced by recent immigrants, refugees, New Americans, deaf, hard - of-hearing, deaf-blind, or speech disabled individuals create a challenge to access available housing opportunities and obtain fair housing knowledge and resources. Persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) are those whose proficiency in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English is such that it denies or limits their ability to have meaningful access to programs and services if language assistance is not provided. According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS), over 16.4 percent of Salt Lake City’s population is foreign -born. Salt Lake City is committed to providing language assistance for LEP persons to ensure equal access to all programs, resources, and opportunities for public engagement. Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment: I. Salt Lake City and its subgrantees will identify populations served that have limited English proficiency (LEP) and develop reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to LEP persons. Each agency/program will develop and implement a language access plan (LAP) to prevent discrimination and foster an environment of inclusiveness. II. Salt Lake City will continue to make its Housing Rehabilitation and Low and Moderate-Income Homebuyer programs available to all eligible individuals including those for whom English is not their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English. The Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development’s LAP outlines steps to ensure meaningful access to its housing programs and activities by LEP persons. III. Salt Lake City will utilize and advertise communication resources and options for deaf, hard-of-hearing, deaf-blind, or speech disabled individuals who can use a Text Telephone (TTY) service. The City will also coordinate with the Mayor’s Americans with Disability Act (ADA) community liaison for additional communication resources and options. IMPLEMENTATION Salt Lake City is taking a comprehensive approach to affirmatively furthering fair housing by promoting fair housing enforcement and education, as well as expanding housing choice and availability. The City intends to further develop the action steps included in this plan and report on progress through the City’s annual Action Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs). Implementation of these actions will require coordination of efforts from multiple stakeholders inside and outside of City government, including subgrantees, housing, and community development partners, various committees, and City staff. 186 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Citizen participation is key to ensure goals and priorities in the Consolidated plan are defined in the context of community needs and preferences. It also provides an opportunity to educate the community about the City’s federal grant programs. To this end, Salt Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stake holders and community members during the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Public engagement efforts included a citywide survey, public hearings, public meetings, stakeholder committee meetings, internal technical committee meetings, and a public comment period. The City received input and buy-in from residents, homeless service providers, low-income service providers, food banks, housing advocates, housing developers, housing authorities, anti-poverty advocates, healthcare providers, transit authority planners, City divisions and departments, among others. Citizen participation opportunities included the following: • Housing and Neighborhood Development Needs Survey • Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meetings • Consolidated Plan Interdepartmental Technical • Consolidated Plan Public Hearing • Consolidated Plan Comment Period • General Needs Hearing • Various Community Fairs • Salt Lake County Needs Survey • Input from Various State & Public Agencies • Salt Lake City Planning Commission Presentation • Salt Lake City Planning Open House • Email blasts, Website postings INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP MEETING #1 On July 29, 2019, the Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) conducted their first meeting. The ITAG members responded to real-time interactive polling using the same questions as the resident survey to ensure consistency and compare results. The top priorities were housing and transportation with an emphasis on insufficient housing stock to meet the needs of a growing population. This concern about stock and growth was focused mostly on low-income individual and families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Another key takeaway from the meeting was that ITAG members felt that their role in relates to the Consolidated Plan was to assist the City Council with implementation and to be a liaison to the public and City officials. STAKEHOLDER MEETING #1 On July 30, 2019, the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division of Salt Lake City held a public meeting with nonprofit providers of housing and supportive services. The purpose of the meeting was to gain input and discuss which needs of low- and moderate-income residents were the greatest. This input helped form the Consolidated Plan’s goals and priorities. 187 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The meeting agenda was as follows: • 10:30 a.m. - 10:40 a.m. – Introductions • 10:40 a.m. - 10:50 a.m. – What is the Consolidated Plan? o Importance of the meeting o Citizen Participation Timeline/Process • 10:50 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. – Existing Conditions & Trends • 11:00 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. – Survey • 10:15 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. – Stakeholder Priorities • 12:15 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. – Wrap-up As outlined in the agenda, the meeting set aside time to help the attendees understand the importance of their feedback in the Consolidated Plan’s goal-setting process and then immediately consulted with them to gain insight into their perception of existing conditions and trends. This was followed by a survey which helped the attendees specify priorities moving forward. The survey results indicated housing services were the highest priority. Homeless services, mental health services, healthcare services, and childhood education programs were the next top priorities respectively. 188 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN SURVEY - (AUG – SEPT. 2019) The survey fielding began in mid-August and ran through September with 2,068 total respondents. The survey’s purpose was to collect feedback from residents regarding their priorities for the provision of housing, public services, and economic development. The survey was available in both English and Spanish versions with additional translation services available upon request. Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. Street improvements, job creation, and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic development, and housing investments respectively. 189 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 190 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 191 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 192 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 193 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 194 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 195 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 196 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 197 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 198 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 199 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 200 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE COUNTY 2019 COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY Salt Lake County also conducted a survey to collect public input on community needs in regard to economic development, as well as housing and community development. 243 respondents reported living in Salt Lake City and indicated that air quality, housing affordability, and homeless services . The survey results also showed that over78% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the notion that Salt Lake County’s available housing units meet the need of the growing population. Survey results were as follows: 201 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 202 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 203 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 204 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 205 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 206 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 207 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 208 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 209 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 210 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 211 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 212 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 213 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 26, 2019 Contact: Jennifer Schumann 801-535-7276 City Now Accepting Applications for CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA Federal Grant Programs SALT LAKE CITY – Applications are currently being accepted for the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs: • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban communities by providing affordable housing, suitable living environments, and economic opportunities for persons of low and moderate income. • Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. • HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for low-income households. • Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Interested entities are invited to submit applications for activities that support local and national program requirements. An application resource guide is available online at www.slc.gov/hand. Optional training sessions will be held on October 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. and October 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. for potential applicants in Room 126 of the City and County Building at 451 South State Street. Applications must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, November 3, 2019. Late applications will not be accepted. For questions about Salt Lake City’s federal grant programs, contact Jennifer Schumann at 801 -535-7276 or email jennifer.schumann@slcgov.com EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM Reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities or those in need of language interpretation services can be provided if four working days’ notice is given by calling 801-535-7777. Hearing impaired who wish to attend these meetings should contact our TDD service number, 801-535-6021,four days in advance so an interpreter can be provided. Physical access entrance and parking are located on the east side of the building. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 P.O. BOX 145474, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114- 5474 WWW.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7704 FAX 801-535-6331 214 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 JACQUELINE M. BISKUPSKI DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT NOTICE of 2020-2021 GRANT APPLICATIONS CDBG, ESG, HOME AND HOPWA PROGRAMS Salt Lake City will make available applications for the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs: • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) • Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) • HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) • Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Applications will be available Monday, October 7, 2019 with a closing date of Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:59 pm. Applications will be accepted via ZoomGrants™, an online grant management system. Please go to www.slc.gov/hand for directions on how to apply. To assist applicants, Salt Lake City will be hosting two in-person training sessions and will make available training session materials at www.slc.gov/hand. Participation in a training session is highly encouraged. They are as follows: • In-person trainings: October 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. October 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. In-person training sessions will be held at the City and County Building in Room 126. Potential applicants must RSVP to Baylee White at Baylee.White@slcgov.com. To assist potential applicants, resources have been made available at Salt Lake City’s Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development website at www.slc.gov/hand. Completed applications must be submitted via ZoomGrants by 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, November 3, 2019. Late applications will not be accepted. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM Reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities or those in need of language interpretation services can be provided if four working days’ notice is given by calling 801-535-7777. Hearing impaired who wish to attend these meetings should contact our TDD service number, 801-535-6021,four days in advance so an interpreter can be provided. Physical access entrance and parking are located on the east side of the building. 215 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP MEETING #2 On September 23, 2019, a second ITAG meeting was held to ensure feedback from City staff would be meaningfully considered in the development of Consolidated Plan goals, the City asked ITAG members to prioritize the unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs that they had identified at the initial ITAG meeting in July. Housing, transportation and the provision of needed services ranked as the highest priorities. STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2 On September 24, 2019, the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division of Salt Lake City held a public meeting with nonprofit providers of housing and supportive services. The purpose of the meeting was to gain input and discuss which strategies that would help achieve the priorities identified in the first stakeholder meeting on July 30, 2019. This input helped form the Consolidated Plan’s strategies which would ultimately aid in achieving the overall goals of the plan. The meeting began with a review of the survey results from the stakeholder meeting held on July 30, 2019 and reaffirmed that the main priorities which had been outlined were housing services and transportation. There was then a review of the data analysis which had been conducted so far with key demographic data points highlighted such as population, housing costs increases, cost burdened households by area, homeless statistics, and others. The stakeholders then worked together to outline a number of suggested funding strategies that the City and nonprofit service providers might consider employing. These strategies included, but are not limited to: • Provide ‘aging in place’ programs • Offer affordable housing voucher programs • Provide client centered community-based case management • Eliminate housing barriers • Integrate transportation and land use considerations to facilitate affordable housing along trans it corridors • Improve regional collaboration with public and private-sector partners to improve efficiencies in the allocation of resources and to reduce redundancies • Leverage innovative technologies to improve access to information regarding affordable hou sing demand and supply • Offer free fare or reduced transit options • Expand transit service in underserved communities • Subsidize rideshare options 216 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 GENRAL NEEDS HEARING PRESS RELEASE OFFICE of the MAYOR | JACQUELINE BISKUPSKI FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 21, 2019 Contact: Elaine Wiseman 801-535-6035 GENERAL NEEDS HEARING - Residents Invited to Submit Comments on Community Development Needs SALT LAKE CITY – The Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) invites residents to participate in a General Needs Hearing to gather pub lic comments on overall housing and community development needs as they relate to low and moderate-income Salt Lake City residents. Each year Salt Lake City receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) grant funds. For the 2020-21 program year HAND anticipates receiving approximately $6 million that may be used to support programs and projects throughout the city. Information gathered at this public hearing and other community engagement events will be used to prioritize funding to address eligible community needs during the 2020-21 program year. Community needs may include projects such as: Homeless Services Health Services Youth Services Adult Services Infrastructure Economic Development Housing – Rental Services Housing – Owner Occupied Hearing from you is vital to ensuring that we are able to prioritize these funds in a way that supports the needs of our community and creates lasting impact. We invite you to participate in the upcoming public hearing or submit comments via email. Public hearing details are as follows: DATE: Thursday, October 24, 2019 TIME: 5:30 – 6:30 p.m. LOCATION: Salt Lake City and County Building 451 South State Street, Room 126 217 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 If you are unable to attend the public hearing, written comments may be submitted to Dillon Hase, Housing and Neighborhood Development, 451 South State Street, P.O. Box 145488, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84114, or emailed to dillon.hase@slcgov.com. Comments must be received by November 1, 2019. Please limit your comments to the benefit of the general needs of our citizens/neighborhoods. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City’s TDD number is 535- 6220. In order to access Salt Lake City’s TDD line you must be calling from a TDD line. To request ADA accommodations contact Joshua Rebollo by email at joshua.rebollo@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7976. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 P.O. BOX 145474, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114- 5474 WWW.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7704 FAX 801-535-6331 218 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION GENERAL NEEDS HEARING on FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS Community Feedback Needed! WHAT: The Salt Lake City Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development seeks public comment on community need for the development of 5 year Consolidated Plan WHEN: Thursday, October 24, from 5:30 - 6:30 PM WHERE: Room 126, Salt Lake City & County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City Come let Salt Lake City know what issues are important to your neighborhoods and communities! We want to hear from residents about what issues they are facing and hear suggestions on how we can improve things. We want to hear from you! Community needs may include projects such as: Homeless Services Health Services Youth Services Adult Services Infrastructure Economic Development Housing – Rental Services Housing – Owner Occupied The Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development considers community need in the development of the new 5 year Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan helps determine funding decisions for our federal grant projects. Community feedback is vital to this process! Written comments will be accepted by Dillon Hase, Housing and Neighborhood Development, 451 South State Street, P.O. Box 145488, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84114, or emailed to dillon.hase@slcgov.com until November 1, 2019. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City’s TDD number is 535-6220. In order to access Salt Lake City’s TDD line you must be calling from a TDD line. To request ADA accommodations contact Joshua Rebollo by email at joshua.rebollo @slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7976. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 219 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION AUDIENCIA DE NECESIDADES GENERALES SOBRE PROYECTOS FINANCIADOS CON FONDOS FEDERALES Se Necesitan Comentarios de la Comunidad Que: El ayuntamiento de la ciudad de Salt Lake busca comentarios del publico acerca de las necesidades de la comunidad para el desarrollo del Plan Consolidado a 5 anos. Cuándo: Jueves, 24 de octubre de 5:30 a 6:30. Donde: Sala 126, Edificio del municipio y Condado, 451 S State Street, Salt Lake City Venga y deje saber a la Cuidad de Salt Lake que problemas son importantes en sus vecindarios y comunidades! Queremos escuchar a los residentes sobre los problemas que enfrentan y escuchar sugerencias sobre como podemos mejorar las cosas. Queremos escuchar de ti! Las necesidades de la comunidad pueden incluir proyectos como: Servicios Para Personas sin Hogar Servicios de Salud Servicios Juveniles Servicios para Adultos Infraestrctura Desarrollo Economico Vivienda – Servicios de Alquiler Vivienda – Ocupada por el Propietario La Oficina de Vivienda y Desarrollo de Vecindarios considera las necesidades de la comunidad en el desarrollo del nuevo Plan Consolidado de 5 anos. El Plan Consolidado ayuda determinar decisiones de financiamiento para nuestros proyectos que serán financiados con dólares federales. Los comentarios de la comunidad son vitales para este proceso. Los comentarios por escrito serán aceptados por la Oficina de Vivienda y Desarrollo de Vecindarios en 451 South State Street, Sala 445, PO Box 145488, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 o por correo electrónico a dillon.hase@slcgov.com hasta el 1 de noviembre de 2019. Programa de igualdad de oportunidades Las personas con discapacidades pueden solicitar un ajuste razonable con 48 horas de anticipación para asistir a esta reunión pública. Las adaptaciones pueden incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares. Esta es una facilidad accesible. El número de Salt Lake City’s TDD es 801 535-6220. Para acceder a la línea TDD de Salt Lake City, debe llamar desde una línea TDD. Para solicitar alojamiento de ADA, comuníquese con Joshua Rebollo por correo electrónico a joshua.rebollo@slcgov.com o por teléfono al 801.535.7976. Las adaptaciones de ADA pueden incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 220 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 General Needs Hearing NextDoor Invitation Come let Salt Lake City know what issues are important to your neighborhoods and communities! We want to hear from residents about what issues they are facing and hear suggestions on how we can improve things. We want to hear from you! Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development will be hosting a General Needs Hearing on Thursday, October 24, from 5:30 to 6:30pm in Room 126 of the City and County Building at 451 South State Street. We hope you can join us! If you are not able to attend the public hearing, written comments may be emailed to dillon.hase@slcgov.com. Comments can be sent now through November 1, 2019. 221 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 2019 General Needs Hearing: Public Comment Summary Source: Email Date Submitted: 10/22/19 Contacted Through: NextDoor Key Points: Streets/Police Thanks for asking about what are issues are. Think the city should concentrate on the things the city is supposed to accomplish. These things, as I see it, are the main responsibilities of the city Police and Fire protection Courts Water and sewer, trash pickup, street lighting, flood control Streets (repair, traffic flow) Parks, including golf courses and disc golf courses I think that the city does a pretty good job on most of these items but, we probably could get better on streets and police. On the west side the streets are in disrepair and have been for what seems like a long time. The main east/west streets, 10th north, 6th north and North temple all have some problems. 10th and 6th are beat to death and North Temple has poor semaphore usage. I think you are working on a plan for 6th north. If not, you should be. The same needs to be done for 10th North. On North temple, the Tracks line mid block cross walks (sometimes not at mid block) need to activate only one half of the road at a time. Pedestrians should have to push a button to get from side A to the train island and then push a button to get from the island to side B since most of the people are crossing just to get on the train. Secondly those lights should all be of the new type for pedestrians where passing the button stops traffic and then after a few seconds flashes to make traffic stop, look and go. As far as police go, I think they do a great job but are somewhat undermanned. I hear and see people speeding or racing on Redwood road far too often. I think if police pull people over once in a while, at random intervals, it would act as a traffic calming action. 222 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Shooting occurs too often. Perhaps a “seen” police presence would help eliminated that. I actually feel safe in my area but I see more city employees on Segways checking the garbage for contraband than I see police in the area. That doesn’t seem right. I also see FAR TOO MANY people texting while driving. I think that if we shower our texters with tickets the streets would be safer. I don’t think that the media campaign is useless but there would be more impact if more people got ticketed. That’s my 2 cents for now. If I think of anything else, I will add it. If you have any questions or need clarification, please contact me. Thanks for reading, Source: Email Date Submitted: 10/24/19 Contacted Through: NextDoor Key Points: Air BnB, Private Streets, Community Garden Dear Dillon, I have some general concerns to share with you. 1) Short term rentals in residential neighborhoods. I live on the 400 South block of Elizabeth Street, 84102. It's a tiny, private street, and yet there are TWO people operating AirBNB on our block. We have contacted Civil Enforcement often and there is reluctance to do anything. Why isn't the City interested in enforcing existing codes? 2) Private streets are another concern. There are many of these in our city, holdovers, from developments many years ago. Now it is a situation where it is no longer clear that anyone is in charge. Our block of Elizabeth Street is one such example. If you look at the plat map, the street doesn't look like it belongs to anyone. It is in disrepair, but there is no clear way for it to be fixed. 3) The LDS church is apparently planning to change the space that has been a community garden behind the 33rd Ward (453 S 1100E, 84102) into a parking lot. This is of great concern to me, both as a member of the garden and a neighbor of the plot. It is in a historic district, and based on the zoning it seems inappropriate. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Happy to follow up with you 223 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 COMMUNITY EVENTS Beginning in May and running through November of 2019, the City performed a grassroots citizen participation effort where City staff attended community events to gather public input through existing forums where opportunities existed to reach hundreds of people at a single event. Some of the events included: • The Rose Park Festival • The Sorenson CommUNITY Fair • Partners in the Park • Groove in the Grove • The Monster Block Party • And dozens more City staff managed information booths and solicited input from residents in the form of interactive materials. It is estimated that over 1,322 residents participated resulting in the following outcome: 224 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 STAKEHOLDER AND ITAG COMBINED #3 On December 11, 2019, the final stakeholder meeting was held in collaboration with members if the City’s (ITAG to ensure collaboration between nonprofit service providers and City departments. The meeting focused on the following objectives: • Homeless Services • Housing Services • Transportation • Economic Development • Behavioral Health: Mental Health & Substance Abuse Stakeholders and City staff voted on strategies which could be used to directly address the objectives of the Consolidated Plan. It was indicated that client centered community-based case management, treatment services for mental health and substance abuse, as well as the provision of housing, transit passes, and job training to income-eligible residents were their top priorities to meet these five objectives. 225 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISION MEETING 226 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Recognized Organization Input Notification US Department of Housing & Urban Development: Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan TO: Registered Recognized Community Organizations FROM: Jennifer Schumann, Deputy Director, Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development (jennifer.schumann@slcgov.com or 801-535-7276); John Anderson, Planning Manager, Salt Lake City Planning Division (john.anderson@slcgov.com or 801-535-7214) DATE: February 7, 2020 RE: Proposed Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan Since May of 2019, Salt Lake City’s Housing & Neighborhood Development Divi sion has been working on creating the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, as required by the US Department of Housing & Urban Development. Part of the Plan’s development has included engaging over 4,000 interested parties at community events, focus groups, and an online survey. A draft of the plan is now ready for review and consideration by the Planning Commission. We are formally requesting input from the Recognized Community Councils within the City on the draft before we preset it to the Planning Commission. Request Description: The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is the City’s guiding document for expenditure of the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement funds: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). These funds are intended to address disparities that exist in our community impacting low income residents and/or low-income areas of the City. Through an extensive process, the City has collaborated with over 4,000 interested parties in the development of the draft Plan. This includes constituents, community partners, city experts, elected officials, state departments, and local municipalities. Together, we have identified highest priority needs; service and funding gaps; actionable goals and strategies; performance measurements and desired outcomes; and specific geographic areas of the city to focus infrastructure improvements. Over the US Department of Housing & Urban Development Program years of 2020 through 2024, Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development will accept applications from non -profit partners, city divisions, and other agencies that address the specific goals and strategies outlined in the plan. All projects/programs must adhere to the applicable grant regulations, the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and city policies. Those interested in learning more about the Plan may visit https://www.slc.gov/hand/consolidated-plan/. Housing & Neighborhood Development respectfully requests that all comments be submitted via the following email address: consolidatedplan@slcgov.com. Request for Input from Your Recognized Organization As part of this process, the applicant is required to solicit comments from Recognized Organizations. The purpose of the Recognized Organization review is to inform the community of t he project and solicit 227 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 comments/concerns they have with the project. The Recognized Organization may also take a vote to determine whether there is support for the project, but this is not required. In general, the plan details specific ways in which CDBG, ESG, HOME, & HOPWA funding may be used to address a wide variety of community needs. This includes goals and strategies around Affordable housing, Transportation, Economic Development, Homeless Services, and Behavioral Health. Per City Code 2.60.050 - The recognized community organization chair(s) have forty five (45) days to provide comments, from the date the notice was sent. A public hearing will not be held, nor will a final decision be made about the project within the forty five (45) day notice period. This notice period ends on the following day: March 23, 2020 Open House The Planning Division will be holding an Open House to solicit comments on this project. Housing & Neighborhood Development Division staff will be on hand to review and discuss the draft plan. The Open House will be held on Thursday, February 20, 2020 from 5:00-7:00 PM in the 4th floor conference room of the SLC Main Library located at 210 E. 400 S. Comment Guidance Public comments will be received up to the date of the Planning Commission public hearing. However, you should submit your organization’s comments within 45 days of receiving this notice in order for those comments to be included in the staff report. Questions and issues that you might want to consider: For your reference, the following are topics that the Planning Commission may want to hear about. 1. What are the community development and social service needs in your neighborhood that could be addressed with the listed, eligible federal funded priorities & activities? 2. What are the community development and social service needs in your neighborhood that are not addressed in this plan? Note that any needs must be eligible for CDBG, ESG, HOME, and/or HOPWA funding, and must rise to a community highest priority need. Comment Submission Address You may submit your written comments via e-mail to consolidatedplan@slcgov.com or mail them to: ATTN Jennifer Schumann Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development Division 451 S State St Rm 445 PO Box 145487 Salt Lake City UT 84114-5487 If you have any questions, please call me at (801) 535 -7276 or contact me via e-mail at Jennifer.schumann@slcgov.com. 228 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 CONSTANT CONTACT 229 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PUBLIC HEARING #1 SALT LAKE CITY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING March 24, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENT THAT ON Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. a public hearing will be held in Room 315, Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State, Salt Lake City, Utah, before the Salt Lake City Council to accept public comment on proposed projects and activities to be undertaken with 2020-2021 federal funds under the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs: - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) CDBG funds may be used for the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing and suitable living environments for persons of low and moderate -income. - Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) ESG funds may be used to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. - HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) HOME funds may be used to create affordable housing opportunities for low -income households. - Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) HOPWA funds may be used to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Prior to making funding decisions on the 2020-2021 program year, the Salt Lake City Council will consider and review all public comments, as well as funding recommendations provided by Mayor Mendenhall and resident advisory boards. Information about funding recommendations can be found on Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) website at www.slcgov.com/HAND. If you are unable to attend the hearing and want your voice to be heard, written comments may be submitted to Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Comments will also be accepted by the Salt Lake City Council office at 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or emailed to council.comments@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages may be left on the Council comment telephone number; 801-535-7654. Comments must be submitted by April 7, 2020. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. 230 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PUBLIC HEARING on FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS CDBG, ESG, HOME AND HOPWA PROGRAMS WHAT: The Salt Lake City Council seeks public comment on proposed 2020-2021 projects to be funded with federal dollars WHEN: Tuesday, March 24th, 2020 at 7:00 PM WHERE: City Council Chambers, Room 315, Salt Lake City & County Building, 451 South State Street A public hearing will be held before the Salt Lake City Council to accept comment on proposed projects and activities to be undertaken with 2020-2021 federal funds under the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs: • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) • Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) • HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) • Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) Prior to making funding decisions on the 2020-2021 program year, the Salt Lake City Council will consider and review all public comments, as well as funding recommendations provided by Mayor Mendenhall and resident advisory boards. Information about funding recommendations can be found on Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) website at www.slcgov.com/HAND. If you are unable to attend the hearing and want your voice to be heard, written comments may be submitted to Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Comments will also be accepted by the Salt Lake City Council office at 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or emailed to council.comments@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages may be left on the Council comment telephone number; 801-535-7654. Comments must be submitted by April 7, 2020. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. 231 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Audiencia Pública sobre proyectos con fondos federales Programas CDBG, ESG, HOME AND HOPWA Que: El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Salt Lake requiere el comentario público acerca de proyectos propuestos para el 2020-2021 que serán financiados con dólares federales Cuándo: Martes, 24 de marzo 2020 a las 7:00 de la noche Donde: Cámara de Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad, Cuarto 315, Edificio del Condado y Municipal, 451 South State Street Se llevara a cabo una audiencia pública ante el Ayuntamiento de Salt Lake en búsqueda de comentarios en proyectos y actividades propuestos que se realizaran con fondos federales en el 2020-2021 bajo los siguientes programas del Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de los EE.UU. (HUD). • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) • Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) • HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) • Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Salt Lake examinará y revisará todos los comentarios recibidos durante la audiencia pública, así como recomendaciones de financiamiento previstas por el Alcalde Mendenhall y los asesora de residentes. Información sobre la financiación de recomendaciones se puede encontrar en el sitio web la Desarrollo de Viviendas y Vecindarios (Housing and Neighborhood Development) de Salt Lake City a www.slcgov.com/HAND. Si no puede asistir a la audiencia y quiere que su voz sea escuchada, comentarios por escrito podrán ser presentadas a Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Comentarios en referencia a la propuesta de financiamiento serán aceptadas por las oficinas del ayuntamiento de Salt Lake City en la 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, o por correo electrónico a council.comments@slcgov.com. También puede dejar mensajes en el teléfono de comentarios del ayuntamiento marcando el número, 801.535.7654. Comentarios deben ser presentadas antes de abril 7, 2020. Programa de Igualdad de Oportunidades Las personas con discapacidades pueden solicita acomodación razonable a más tardar con 48 horas de anticipación para asistir a esta reunión pública. Las adaptaciones pueden incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares. Esta es una instalación accesible. Salt Lake City Corporation se compromete a garantizar que todos los miembros del público puedan acceder la. Para solicitar alojamiento de ADA, comuníquese con Sarah Benj por correo electrónico a sarah.benj@slcgov.com o por teléfono al 801.535.7697. 232 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PUBLIC HEARING #2 SALT LAKE CITY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING April 7, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENT THAT ON Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. a remote public hearing will be held before the Salt Lake City Council to accept public comment on proposed projects and activities to be undertaken with 2020-2021 federal funds under the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs: - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) CDBG funds may be used for the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing and suitable living environments for persons of low and moderate -income. - Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) ESG funds may be used to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. - HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) HOME funds may be used to create affordable housing opportunities for low -income households. - Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) HOPWA funds may be used to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to persons living With HIV/AIDS and their families. This Council Meeting will NOT have a physical location. All participants will connect remotely. (This public hearing is an additional public hearing opportunity in addition to the public hearing held March 24, 2020.) Prior to making funding decisions on the 2020-2021 program year, the Salt Lake City Council will consider and review all public comments, as well as funding recommendations provided by Mayor Mendenhall and resident advisory boards. Information about funding recommendations can be found on Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) website at www.slcgov.com/HAND. To send comments directly to the Council, email council.comments@slcgov.com, leave a message on the 24-hour comment line 801-535-7654, mail comments to the Salt Lake City Council office at 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or see Webex Instructions to learn how to participate live, https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city-council- meetings/. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council a nd added to the public record. Written comments may also be submitted to HAND, tony.milner@slcgov.com, which will be provided to the Council. 233 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801-535-7697. 234 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY AVISO DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA abril 7, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. POR MEDIO DE LA PRESENTE SE NOTIFICA QUE EL martes 7 de abril de 2020 a las 7:00 p.m. se llevará a cabo una audiencia pública remota ante el Consejo de la Ciudad de Salt Lake para aceptar comentarios públicos sobre los proyectos y actividades propuestas que se llevarán a cabo con 2020-2021 fondos federales bajo los siguientes programas del Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de los Estados Unidos (HUD): - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Los fondos CDBG pueden utilizarse para el desarrollo de comunidades urbanas viables al proporcionar viviendas dignas y entornos de vida adecuados para personas de ingresos bajos y moderados. - Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Los fondos ESG pueden usarse para ayudar a las personas y familias a recuperar la estabilidad de la vivienda después de experimentar una crisis de vivienda o falta de vivienda. - HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Los fondos de HOME pueden utilizarse para crear oportunidades de vivienda asequible para nucleos familiares de bajos ingresos. - Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Los fondos de HOPWA se pueden utilizarse para proporcionar asistencia de vivienda y servicios de apoyo relacionados a personas que viven con VIH / SIDA y sus familias. Esta reunión del consejo NO se efectuara físicamente. Todos los participantes se conectarán de forma remota. (Esta audiencia pública es una oportunidad de audiencia pública adicional además de la audiencia pública celebrada el 24 de marzo de 2020). El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Salt Lake examinará y revisará todos los comentarios recibidos durante la audiencia pública, así como recomendaciones de financiamiento previstas por el Alcalde Mendenhall y los asesora de residentes. Información sobre la financiación de recomendaciones se puede encontrar en el sitio web la Desarrollo de Viviendas y Vecindarios (Housing and Neighborhood Development) de Salt Lake City a www.slcgov.com/HAND. Para enviar comentarios directamente al Consejo, envíe un correo electrónico a council.comments@slcgov.com, deje un mensaje en la línea de comentarios de 24 horas 801-535- 7654, envíe comentarios a la oficina del Consejo de Salt Lake City en 451 South State Street, Room 304 , PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, o vea las Instrucciones de Webex para aprender cómo participar en vivo, https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city-council- meetings/. Todos los comentarios recibidos a través de cualquier fuente se comparten con el Consejo y se agregan al registro público. Los comentarios por escrito también se pueden enviar a HAND, tony.milner@slcgov.com, que se proporcionará al Consejo. 235 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Programa de Igualdad de Oportunidades Las personas con discapacidades pueden solicitar acomodación razonable a más tardar con 48 horas de anticipación para asistir a esta reunión pública. Las adaptaciones pueden incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares. Esta es una instalación accesible. Salt Lake City Corporation se compromete a garantizar que todos los miembros del público puedan acceder la. Para solicitar alojamiento de ADA, comuníquese con Sarah Benj por correo electrónico a sarah.benj@slcgov.com o por teléfono al 801-535-7697. 236 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC HEARING #1 AND #2 Salt Lake City Council. Public Hearing, March 24, 2020, 7pm, via WebEx, Facebook, and YouTube. Public Comments. Source: WebEx Digital Service Date Submitted: 3/24/20 7:12 pm Executive Director of Journey of Hope. CDBG – Public Services Applicant. Agency: Journey of Hope. Project: Advocacy and Case Management Services. Comments: Retired from law enforcement after 20 years of services. She set up programs for women getting out of jail and prison, did as much work inside the system as she could. She started Journey of Hope, and they’ve served 2,000 women in five years, with only 17% recidivism. Overall, their services have saved millions of dollars to the State. Their second try for SLC CDBG funds for case management services to expand services to girls who are aging out of the juvenile justice system. These girls have been sexually exploited and trafficked. These girls turning to the Youth Resource Center as they have no family, where there are boys and gang members who traffic girls. Had one young lady who was drugged and woke up in Las Vegas. One of the few non-profits standing in the gap for girls/women leaving the justice system. They were not chosen for CDBG, they’re the “little guys” and are new, they would like to be re-considered for CDBG funding. Source: WebEx Digital Service Date Submitted: 3/24/20 7:24pm. He worked with International Rescue Commission. He recommended how great the agency is and how hard they work. He wants funding for digital equity, as not everyone has internet or access to computers. Source: WebEx Digital Service Date Submitted: 3/24/20 7:26pm. She Executive Director of The INN Between. Applied for CDBG – Public Services, wasn’t recommended by the CDCIP Board or the Mayor for funding. Hospice and Medical Respite for-Homeless. Comments: Asked the Council to reconsider the non-recommendation for funding. Strong partnership with the City. Before the agency existed, many homeless individuals were dying on the street without access to hospice care, that cannot be delivered in shelters, campsites, or motels. They offer wrap around services and save the area money. The Inn Between serves 40 individuals a night and is projected serve 30 more. They serve homeless and non-homeless, those near medical bankruptcy. End of life care without having to go into shelter or hospital. The Inn Between is a critical par t of homeless services. They have the infrastructure, licensing and professional staff in place. The new Homeless Resource Centers don’t have medical beds, and they’re able to fill that need. The homeless resource centers are also at capacity. The Homeless Resource Center’s don’t have the ability to care for people getting cancer treatment. Asking for only one half of 1% of total budget to serve the homeless, 60% of the clients come from Salt Lake City. 237 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: WebEx Digital Service Date Submitted: 3/24/20 7:34pm. Executive Director of the International Rescue Committee Applied for CDBG – Public Services. Program: International Rescue Committee Getting Up to Speed: Expanding Digital Services for Refugees and Asylees in Salt Lake City. Not recommended for funding. Comments: Appreciates the consideration of their digital inclusion application. She identified how the program serves those vulnerable in the community. Source: WebEx Digital Service Date Submitted: 3/24/20 7:37 pm. Grants Manager, International Rescue Committee. CDBG – Public Services. Getting Up to Speed: Expanding Digital Services for Refugees and Asylees in Salt Lake City. Not recommended for funding. Comments: Thank you to the Mayor and City council and Housing and Ne ighborhood Staff for continued support for CDBG funding, and for past funding. Highlights the connection for digital inclusion and refugees. Aligned to digital connection to Housing Plan, stabilizing renters and increasing self-sufficient, employment and financial stability. A renewal would help increase refugee household overall stability who are hampered by language and cultural skills. Project complimented through cross agency interaction. Digital inclusion program is integral for clients accessing employment when they enter the U.S. She identified that the program stabilizes low income renters by helping them obtain employment, which in turn helps with stable housing. Emails Regrading Federal Funds Between City Council Meetings Source: Email to City Council Staff Date Submitted: 3/27/20 Salt Lake City Council Members, Volunteers of America, Utah is grateful for the partnership we have had with the City government over many years. We appreciate the time that the CDCIP Board, Mayor Mendenhall and her staff have spent reviewing all applications that were submitted. Volunteers of America, Utah has submitted three applications for funding for next fiscal year 2020-2021. Community Development Block Grant – CDBG Public Services Program Request CDCIP Board Recommendation Mayors Recommendation Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center $105,797 $89,000 100,281 We are grateful for both recommendations and encourage the support of Mayor Mendenhall’s recommendation of $100,281. 238 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Emergency Solutions Grant – Shelter Operations Program Request CDCIP Board Recommendation Mayors Recommendation Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center $40,000 $38,000 $38,000 Youth Resource Center $60,000 $46,000 $46,000 We appreciate the CDCIP Board and the Mayors funding recommendation for both emergency solutions grant applications. We value the support of our programs that provide shelter and services for both homeless youth and homeless women. We thank you for the opportunity to submit a written document at this time given the Stay Home. Stay Safe. Order endorsed by the Mayor to decrease public gatherings. Comments Received by Email regarding Federal Grant Dollars Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. This is not the time to cut support services for the homeless. They are, along with the undocumented, the ones least likely to get adequate medical care during this pandemic. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Hello, I am a Salt Lake City resident and a neighbor of The Inn Between. I am writing to urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. The Inn Between plays a key role to our homeless and their need for hospice care, and we need to support them so they can continue to serve our community. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council Members: I just got word that the Mayor and Salt Lake City Council will be cutting off funding for The Inn Between – this is being sent as my plea that you carefully reconsider this decision. 239 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The Inn Between is a wonderful organization that provides much needed, and otherwise lacking, services to the homeless community. Its funding is limited, and this decision by the City Council and Mayor will have a significantly detrimental impact on its ability to provide these services – which will in turn only contribute to our homeless challenges. I plead with you to reconsider and continue the funding that is so needed to help sustain this important organization. In these challenging times, it is even more important that organizations like The Inn Between – and the mission it serves – receive our support. Thank you. Regards, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Hello, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. During a crisis like the one we are in, cutting funding to organizations like the INN Between seems shortsighted and unnecessary. Thanks Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council member, The Inn Between has provided a place for terminally ill homeless patients to receive comfort care in their final days. It is a much need service provider in this community. They have previously received $46,000 in Block Grant Funds to help them provide their services. Please reconsider your funding discussions and allow them the money to continue their important work. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, I am a Salt Lake City resident and actually a neighbor of the Inn Between. I am also a member of The Inn Between Board of Directors. Every month at our board meetings we hear a “mission moment” when a member of the staff shares a story of an event at The Inn Between since we last met. Sometime it is about a reunification with a resident and their extended family, sometimes it is about a residents last days and passing, always the stories reflect the mission of The Inn Between to enhance the dignity of each resident wherever they are in their life journey. 240 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 In this time of uncertainty, anxiety and fear, and human and economic crises, there are hard choices to be made. While previous levels of funding may not be possible, I urge you to reconsider your funding decision regarding the CDBG dollars. Any amount you can fund would be of great assistance in sustaining the vital work of The Inn Between. The efforts of the staff of The Inn Between have been nothing less than heroic in protecting the residents from contracting Covid-19. Continuing some level of funding assures them their efforts are not in vain and that you too understand the importance of not forcing our residents to have to access services from already overwhelmed medical services in our community or even worse, die in the streets. Your consideration of this plea is much appreciated. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council Members, I have been a volunteer with the Inn Between for 4 years and have seen first hand the good this nonprofi t has done for the vulnerable homeless in our city. PLEASE, please reconsider giving any amount possible to this facility. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 To whom it may concern, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. "I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program." Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council members, I am the Volunteer Coordinator at The INN Between and have been since the beginning. I have watched our resident population expand from 16 to 40 with the move to our new location. I am asking that you please reconsider your CDBG funding decision for t he support of our residents. Our historical amount of about $46,000 represents only 3% of our annual budget, and yet about 80% of the people we serve are from salt Lake City. The need is great among homeless service providers and funding is understandably limited. However, TIB will be significantly impacted by this funding cut. We would appreciate your funding at any level. Please consider your CDBG funding decision. Which of our 40 residents would you deny? Thank you and my best to you all. 241 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Greetings, I understand that The Inn Between is not being recommended for CDBG Funding at this time. I would like to strongly encourage you to restore CDBG funding to this important asset in our community. As some of you may know, I work to support students experiencing homelessness within the educational system. I have become more acutely aware of the needs of all individuals experiencing homelessness. Compound that with a terminal illness, or a need to be in a rehabilitation program for a long term condition, and the odds are not good. As a community, we need to do better by our homeless friends. The Inn between provides a vital service to our entire community. It allows those with no limited options, a place to die with dignity. I was fortunate to become acquainted with The Inn Between when it was across the street from my house. I volunteered to be part of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee, and heled address concerns neighbors had with the program. I found the staff to be willing to work with community members to address concerns, and make sure they were being good neighbors. I am sure that is still the same today in their new neighborhood. Please restore the funding request to the Inn Between, so they can continue the work on behalf of our truly less fortunate community members in Salt Lake City. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 PLEASE - As a Salt Lake City resident, and I implore you to reconsider decision to cut CDBG funding for The INN Between. I realize this is a difficult time but this is a group that has done so much with so little as it is and this is a great humanitarian need. Please continue to help them with any amount that you can to sustain their program. Thank you. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council Members, I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between for 2020 -2021. They provide critical medical respite housing services for medically frail and terminally ill clients, and are an integral part of the homeless services continuum in Salt Lake City. However, they do not receive adequate funding from the state or other sources because they are not designated as a "shelter," which means that they must raise funding from other sources to provide this medical housing service to the community. Any amount of funding that you grant will help the sustainability of the program. Sincerely, 242 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. It is shameful for you to cut their funding. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear SLC Council, As an Avenues resident of Salt Lake City, I am writing to urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. This facility provides a desperately-needed service, providing hospice care for the homeless of SLC. Any amount that you can fund will help them provide dignity at the end of life. Thanks for your consideration. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear City Council, I am a Salt Lake City resident and I urge you to reconsider your funding for the Inn Between. I unders tand that there is an urgent need to help the homeless in Salt Lake City, but the Inn Between needs funding to remain open and provide their care for the very ill and dying among the homeless. We must care for the poor, sick and/or dying members of our community. It is not only a moral and humane obligation but a public health issue as well. Before the Inn Between existed, my husband and I stood in the the cold in winter with fellow church members holding a candles to protest the fact that we had Salt Lake City residents dying in our streets. Please don't let us go back to those dark days. The Inn Between has my support and I hope you will make sure they have the funding to help them maintain their service. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am very concerned about the proposal to reduce funding for the homeless in Salt Lake - in particular the federal HUD funds distributed by the SLC Community Development Block Grant program for the INN Between. They - and the homeless - especially need these funds now during this exceptional crisis. I ask you to please reconsider this decision. Thank you for your attention, 243 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Hello Salt Lake City Council, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Your funding is invaluable to the sustainability of this wonderful program. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 As a resident of Salt Lake City, I believe The INN Between is an appropriate expenditure for CDBG funding. Please do not cut that appropriation at this precipitous time for the most vulnerable. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council Members: As a resident of Salt Lake City and a board member of The Inn Between, I write to urge your reconsideration of The INN Between’s request for CDBG funds to help insure our homeless population receives hospice, respite care and shelter. I am sure that requests for funding far outweigh what is available, but I would be grateful for any support you could provide. Thank you for your service and consideration. Kind regards, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear City Council Members: I am a Salt Lake City resident, as well as a volunteer at The Inn Between. I am aware of how tight budgets are this year. However, I urge you to consider funding The INN Between at any level possible. This facility is of vital importance to our community. Thank you. 244 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council: I am a resident of Salt Lake City, and an advocate for the ethical treatment of vulnerable populations, the homeless being one. I ask that you reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program, and give the population they serve a safe place to live the remainder of their lives, and access to the treatment they deserve. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am reaching out and asking that you consider helping with any funding possible for the folks at the Inn Between I know these are crazy times but please help these folks provide some little bit of help to the dying Thank you Mike Evans SLC Resident Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, I am a resident of Salt Lake City and am very concerned that The INN Between receive proper funding from the city. Please reconsider the funding for The INN Between. The services they provide are critical to those at the end of life and ultimately, to our community at large. We simply cannot turn our back on such a vulnerable population. At the least, we should fund at previous levels if not beyond, given the difficult time that we’re in. Logic would lead one to anticipate the population served by The INN Between is going to be more vulnerable to COVID19 and thus in need of their services. And, God forbid, should the infection result in more people dying before they need to be admitted to The INN Between, there will still be people who will be in need of hospice care for other reasons. This facility is desperately needed by the community much less by those whom it serves. The dignity conveyed upon the dying is shared by those who exhibit such compassion. The city funds a small but critical amount of the facility’s needs, but it’s probably that many corporate and personal contributions will be less this year than in the past. Thank you for your consideration of this. I could argue that this facility is n eeded even more than Allen Park. Please prove to me that my community cares more for people than for birds. (I love birds and agree that we deserve to have them in our midst, but not at the expense of caring for a human being as they die). 245 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I understand that funds from the Community Development Block Grant will not be allocated to The Inn Between. These are difficult times for the city I know, but this is an excellent organization deserving of a second look at funding. The Inn Between fulfills a very heartbreaking mission. We hear much now about patients dying in hospitals due to Covid-19, separated from loved ones. Imagine dying alone, homeless, without friends or family. Any amount of funding would help The Inn Between achieve its mission. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I have seen the good that this facility does. Please do not cut fubding, ESPECIALLY now. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Council members, I know the city is dealing with major shortfalls, but just want to plead for maintaining funding for the INN Between - this program provides an incredibly valuable service to hospice patients who do not hav e a home. Please re-consider and try to maintain their funding. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I feel this is especially important in this time of COVID-19. Thank you, 246 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Best, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear City Council Members, I have recently learned that the latest budget effort does not include funding for the homeless hospice, and I ask you to reconsider. I know that you care and that all the choices you must make are hard. However, their funding is only in the tens of thousands and every dollar is well spent to keep homeless people from dying by emergency room visits. We will wind up having to pay for their medical expenses anyway, and the Inn Between is a MUCH more efficient use of those relatively modest funds. Also, in addition to the obvious need for care these people experience, the rest of us are affected by seeing them uncared for on the streets, which affects morale at this difficult time. Please reconsider, and fund the Inn Between for our most desperate and voiceless citizens. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Salt Lake City Council As a resident of Salt Lake City, I am asking you to please reconsider the much needed funding for the Inn Between. The important part they play in giving a safe place for those that would otherwise die on th e streets is so valuable, and allows them to at least die with dignity in a safe place. When my late husband passed away in 2015 we were among the lucky ones, as the job he had held for only 6 months placed him on long term disability which gave us an income which allowed is to continue living in a safe place, with the care he needed. Otherwise we would probably have landed on the street somewhere and he wouldn't have had the care he received up until the end. I do what little I can to support the Inn Between, and I am reaching out to you and asking that you do your part to help them keep helping those that need it the most. Thank you 247 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 To whom it may concern, "I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their valuable program. Thank you very much, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Ladies & Gentlemen, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I ask you to please reconsider funding the CDBG (in any amount) for The Inn Between. Thank you so much. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Please continue funding the Inn Between they do wonderful work.. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council Members – Everyone seems to talk a lot about what they’ll do for the homeless, but actions speak so much louder than those words. I just discovered that CDBG funding for The INN Between is at risk. The funding received by The INN Between in the past is a small fraction of available CDBG funding and makes a tremendous difference in the sustainability of its program. This is all about dignity and compassion for dying homeless people. If the funding is going to be eliminated, please provide me and the rest of the community with your reasoning. I know there are a lot of competing claims for CDBG funding. For the eight years I served as Mayor, I went through the grueling process of considering all requests and making the tough decisions for CDBG funding recommendations. I was also aware that the priorities of City government were reflected in the funding decisions recommended by the Mayor and ultimately made by the City Council. Please count dying with dignity as a value supported by the City Council. 248 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 City Council: As a Salt Lake City resident and supporter of The INN Between I am writing to ask you to please reconsider your CDBG funding decision you made in regards to this important organization. I believe that they provide a vital and compassionate service for the least among us. Thank you for your service and reconsideration. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 To whom it may concern: I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I have volunteered for years with the group and they do amazing things for the homeless and critically ill patients. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Council Members, I am the resident of township but familiar with the INN and their mission. They provide a major social return for a very small amount of public funding. It is not easy to put a price on death with dignity but in this health crisis death on the streets should be a public concern. Thank you for your consideration in renewing their funding. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Dear City Council Members, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 249 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 I live in Salt Lake City and I volunteer at the Inn Between. It provides needed medical service for our citizens who have limited access to medical care. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/6/2020 Hello, City Council I'm a neighbor of The Inn Between, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between, especially during this time of crisis. The Inn Between performs a vital service on behalf our community's most vulnerable people, and they need your help. Thank You and Kind Regards, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Council, I am writing this to urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. This mone y is critical for the sustainability of their program. As a volunteer for the Inn, a resident of Salt Lake City, and a Firefighter I see the the incredible work that the INN Between does for our most vulnerable population. Please don't turn your back on this fine organization. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council Members, Please Support the CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I support The INN Between, by being a good neighbor 1 block south, by small personal donations of money, food, and clothes, and through supporting the efforts of my wife Mary Beth Vogel-Ferguson Ph. D, who is on the board of directors. As a former RN I've had experie nce in hospice settings, witnessed death with dignity, and I know the positive impact The Inn Between has on our people in need. Please support their request for the CABG funding. We must ensure that The INN Between can continue to serve the poor and afflicted members of our community as they face a medical crisis or the end of life. Sincerely, 250 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am pleading to have continued funding for The Inn Between in this upcoming year; I speak as a family member of Patricia Rice who died there Nov. 7, 2019. She was diagnosed with cirrhosis from Hepatitis C in 2007, continued to work at a SLC company until her disability prevented her from doing acceptable work, @ 2013 when she went to full time disability through her employer and applied for Medicaid. She received a waiver through Salt Lake County Aging Services and was able to live pretty independently t hat way at Wasatch Manor with HUD funds until Sept. 2019 when too many falls made it impossible for her to live alone. Her hospice agency and SLCounty Aging services expedited her move to The Inn Between the first week of Sept 2019 and she was able to live there with some level of dignity and safety until her death. She was care for very tenderly and I have the greatest respect for all the staff and volunteers whose efforts let her die in dignity and peace. The population of poor and ill are the most voiceless in our community and I know we must speak for them when their care and protection are threatened. They are not receiving luxuries, they are offered a clean place to live in their dying days; some have shared rooms, there are clothes available fro m donations, arts/crafts supplies are donated, classes are given by volunteers. This is a remarkable example of public/private/volunteer collaboration to support these least of us in their times of need. If anyone would like me to speak directly to the time my sister spent at The Inn Between, I am sheltering at home (I live in the Liberty Wells section of SLCity) during this time of Coved19. My telephone number is 801-674-0721, this is my email and I can use ZOOM. I can’t imagine the impact of Coved 19 on the poor and homeless population of SLCity and that The Inn Between may be the last option for more people next year than this year. This is not the time to cut their funds. Please reconsider. Very truly, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council members, I'm writing to advocate for the INN -between. This is a first class organization that is taking a huge burden off of the city of Salt Lake. Over three-quarters of the hospice patients taken in by the INN are from Salt Lake City.. I run a Resort property on North Temple and we've been supporting the INN with dollars as well as supplies, for years. Their work deserves to be encouraged and supported. I hope you will put a line item in the budget equivalent to the $46,000 from last year or at least very very close to that. They're doing the work for us all and taking the financial burden of those folks away from Salt Lake City government! Proven track record spanning years ~ Regards, 251 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Members of the City Council, I am a resident of Salt Lake City and a supporter of the Inn Between. I am asking you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. The INN Between provides an important service as a medical respite facility for homeless individuals, 80% of whom are from Salt Lake City. I understand that there are many, many competing needs for funding at this time. However, having a safe place for medically-fragile people to recover is still important, even more important, during this challenging time. Please consider restoring their funding for this year. Thank you. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a volunteer hairdresser for The Inbetween as well as a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I first hand, have seen the impact of this program for the staff, patients and community. These beautiful people would be lost or have died a lonely death without this service. As a community we must look out for each other, provide a better future for each other and build each other up. This is how you can help. As in life you meet the good the bad and the ugly. These people are good that want good, want a chance and want comfort in their final days or the support to make a new future. In all the conversations I have had with people at the Innbetween I have realized, this could be you, your mentors, your family members, your neighbors or your friends. What would you do if they needed your help in their final days? I hope you continue the support for such a great cause. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a palliative and hospice care social worker. The InnBetween is vital. We cannot return to the homeless dying on our streets. We are better than this. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program! We vote! 252 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello, I am sincerely asking you to not cut funding for the INN Between. This organization performs such important work in serving the dying within the homeless population. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council Members: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Inn Between. I was shocked and surprised that the funding was cut for support of this very important and necessary service to provide a place for homeless citizens to die with dignity. I was a volunteer in the very beginning of the Inn Between and have been an advocate ever since. I have been so impressed with the loving care that is provided for the very sick and the end of life care that is provided for the homeless and less privileged in our city. Please continue your support. Salt Lake City has been a model for other states to provide the same kind of service. Thank you for reconsidering your decisions and I pray for your continued support. Best Regards, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Please DO NOT cut funding for The Inn Between Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council members, I will keep this note short, as I realize this is and intense time for the world and our community. I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 253 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Council Members: I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I am writing this to urge you to reconsider your Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of this program. I am aware that our city and the country are facing more than difficult times, but this program is so important for our homeless who require hospice or respite care. Yours, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear city council members, Please reconsider your position on funding the Inn Between. This organization is the only one of its kind serving the clients they help: homeless individuals who are dying and others who cannot get hospice or respite care any other way. They desperately need funding support, so please reconsider the cut and fund them fully. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 SLC shelters the homeless who are living. The Inn Between shelters the homeless who are dying. Please do not massively cut their fundin g. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Members of the SLC council, I will keep this note brief as I realize this is and incredibly intense and scary time in our community and our world. As a resident of Salt Lake City and the Sugarhouse/Yalecrest neighborhood, I am asking you to please, please reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. The Inn provides a critical service in our community and any amount that you can fund will help sustain this very important pro gram. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 254 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 The Inn Between has emailed their supporters and asked them to send letters of support for funding. As many of you know, I do not support funding The Inn Between. If the genesis/funding/operations of organizations like this is typical, - then it will not stand out for you. Incompetence and grift should never be the norm and I will speak out against it at every opportunity. I have already been attacked and opine d upon by SLT and Gehrke so I have nothing to hide from. I don't have to tell you that the decision being made, based on models of a virus, are going to have devastating effects on the economy as a whole. Places like The Inn Between will now stand out as the repellent example of waste that they are. 1. The State granted them a license as an assisted living (AL). In order to be legal in zoning. They have between 5-10 on the AL side. 2. The City granted them a license under eleemosynary and then housed the chronically homeless with NO criteria for entry. 3. This is not a hospice and never has been! They have since rebranded and covered most of the signage that indicates they are a hospice. 4. The appropriations committee gave them 1M dollars to buy a building that was sound and needed no work. The attached pictures shows the current work taking place which includes a new roof/electrical/elevator/HVAC to just name a few! This was possible from a federal grand that someone in this state gave them. I will be researching more on that. 5. Within 5 months of opening they were over budget by $700,000. 6. They were over budget because they did not hire the required medical staff per AL licensing. They were operating for 5 months without MA's. And guess what? Everyone was just fine. They operated for several years at Goshen street without MA's. Why? Because they were not needed. So basically we are paying for medical staff so that they can be legal in zoning they should not be in. 7. Drug deals, residents sneaking out at night, assaults, suicides all go on within this facility. 8. 911 calls from WITHIN this facility are significant and consistent. 9. Our City Council, Erin Mendenhall told us at a town hall that she would hold TIB accountable. Many on the street, as well as myself, reached out to her with our concerns and proof of misdeeds. We never got a response. The only way any improvements have been made at TIB is because myself and several others have held them accountable. This is the project of those that want to put homeless shelters in neighborhoods because somehow it will fix the ills of these people. Senator Escamilla made that exact claim. While I am glad that people have a roof over their head, it should not be at the expense of what was once a functioning street. The residents of Sherman Ave. who could and understood the implications of housing the mentally ill and addicted, sold or moved and got out of the neighborhood. Stop rewarding incompetence. 255 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear council members and Mayor Mendenhall, I am writing to request that you reinstate funding for the hospice center The Inn Between. Without this service, the most vulnerable among us the homeless who are facing death will again die on our streets. Certainly we can find the funds to provide hospice care to our brothers and sisters in need. I trust that you will find it in your hearts to continue helping those who help others. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council Members: I am a volunteer with the Inn Between and live in District 7. I understand that you are cutting the CBDG funds allotted to the program. I urge you to reconsider directing those funds to support the facility. They op erate under a bare-bones budget and do whatever they can to minimize costs yet maintain the quality of service they provide to this most needy population. Through my observations at the facility I can assure you that the funds are well spent. I appreciate your time and hope you will reconsider funding this most needed program. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and have been for 20 years. My house is one block from the INN Between. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. This is not the time to reduce funding for the critical programs provided by this important institution. If it puts the homeless terminally ill back on the streets, you will be responsible for having made our current health care crisis worse. More city residents will die, and not just those at the INN Between. I ask that you reconsider this decision. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I can’t believe you red lined the whole budget for the INN Between. It’s a treasure for those who need it most. The people who are the most vulnerable are the ones we need to tend too. As a society, we are judged by the thoughts and actions of those who can give, and the homeless are the ones who need a voice, they need the kind and giving support of people who are fortunate to have the means to give back . 256 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 You, as a City Council have those means of giving dignity, and relief to people that have no where else to turn. Please, I beg, return the funding to a project that truly helps people who are suffering. Kim has worked so hard, put in so many hours to bring this idea to life. Don’t bring it down now. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 It has come to our attention that the City Council has cut funding to The INN Between. We are Salt Lake City residents and believe that this facility provides an invaluable service to members of our community who are otherwise unable to care for themselves. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will benefit the sustainability of their program. The people who are served there are primarily from Salt Lake City, and, we believe, deserve to have end of life services provided when they have nowhere else to turn. Please do reconsider your decision. We live in the general neighborhood (1900 E & 900 S), an area filled with medical care facilities. This one is providing a service like no other. Please do not let such a facility fold for lack of funds or for lack of consideration by those who may indeed have a say in its viability! Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To whom ever it may concern and City Counsel Members, I am a Salt Lake City resident who has volunteered for years at The Inn Between and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Though it is only 3% is a small percentage of our absolutely necessary funding to keep the INN functioning for the many Salt Lake Residence that we provide safe, clean residence for. Most of our residence are, in fact, from Salt Lake City. We are able to supply a caring and supportive environment for our residence from a deeply committed staff and volunteers. This is an underserved community and your support deeply matters. Please come by and visit us at you convenience. Thank you warmly, 257 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To whom it may concern: I am a Salt Lake County resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. It is clear that the homeless will be disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 crisis. Cutting any funding to their care at this point could be especially catastrophic to them, as well as our community as a whole! Respectfully, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hi, I'm a SLC resident, and I heard that that the Council has cut all CDBG funding to The INN Between, which continues to serve our local homeless population at a time of great need. Can you explain why this was done? Where are those funds being redirected? I hope you will reconsider your decision, and perhaps find additional resources that can help The INN Between continue their important mission. My heart aches when I try to imagine the suffering to come for those who have nothing. I beg you to feel the same compassion. Thank you for you work, as well. I hope that you'll reply to this email. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Greetings Salt Lake City Council, I just found out that tomorrow (April 7th) is the last time to send in a comment on the next city budget. I would like to personally advocate for restoring funding to The INN Between (TIB). I know you have very difficult decisions to make as to allocation of the CDBG money, and there is not enough to spread as far as desired. However, I have been following TIB closely (live near them) and am so impressed with their mission and the compassion and professionalism they bring to fulfilling it. Any amount of restoration of funding will be very much appreciated and frugally utilized. I stand with my friends experiencing homelessness in our community, particularly as they face end of life and medical rehab needs. I know you care as well and thank you for your consideration of this matter. Thanks, 258 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am employed by Rocky Mountain Community Reinvestment Corporation (RMCRC). In 2019 RMCRC provided most of the financing for the acquisition and rehab of the current Inn Between facility. Through its involvement RMCRC became uniquely aware of the cost savings to the City of Salt Lake and emergency services and local hospital emergency rooms because of the Inn Between. RMCRC has since been rapaid on its loan and funding of the INN Between will have no impact on it financially. The relatively few dollars allocated to the Inn Between if withdrawn will substantially impact the City of Salt Lake’s expenditures for emergency care and transit for this vulnerable and costly segment of the homeless population in the City. We strongly urge you to support the INN Between by continuing your funding. It is pennies on the dollar savings to the City of Salt Lake. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hi, As someone who has volunteered at INN Between and lived at the Young Men’s Transition Home, I have seen first hand the benefit that these programs provide for people. I have consistently seen young men make it out of homelessness thanks to this transition home program; and countless old folks have died with a smile on their face instead of a grieving frown. Let us value this as highly as it deserves to be. And let us know that our community’s tax dollars are going to a good cause thanks to these programs. We would all rather fund these programs with our tax dollars than something else. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Council, We are volunteers and financial supporters of The INN Between and witness the impact which this non profit clinic has on many Salt Lake City residents in need. We're asking you to reconsider the decision to cut CDBG funding for this facility. This grant is vital in ensuring that the clinic can continue to serve the poorest and most distressed members of our community. Please remember that The INN Between provides shelter to homeless individuals facing medical crisis as well as safety and comfort to those at the end of life. If you'd like to contact us, we'd be happy to provide you with more information about the mission of The INN Between and their success stories. Sincerely, 259 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To whom it may concern, Please accept this letter of support for The INN Between. The INN Between is a wonderful organization that we have worked with several times in the past as a private foundation. They make such an important impact in our community and I would urge that you reconsider your CDBG funding decision. Any amount funded can help this program remain sustainable. Kind regards, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Greetings Salt Lake City Councel Members, I am a Salt Lake City resident and volunteer at the Inn Between, and I strongly urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of the program. 80% of the people we serve are from Salt Lake City and they would take the hit if we stop receiving this grant. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Council Members, I would urge you to reconsider cutting funding for one of the most vulnerable populations in Utah. The INN Between is a wonderful place that brings homeless patients comfort and hospice care during their last days on earth. Every human deserves palliative care and to be surrounded by those who show them love. I know that they have taken multiple patients from the Fourth Street Clinic before they became terminally ill. I appreciate you all working towards a solution towards the housing and healthcare crise s and for fighting the idea that humanity is conditional. Sincerely, 260 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello, I've been a Salt Lake City resident for almost 3 years now and one of the things that impressed me the most was your care for the less fortunate. Having a hospice for the homeless demonstrates that care. My parents and two siblings, indeed, my whole family, benefited from the care they received through hospice at the end of their lives. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding dec ision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Thank you for your reconsideration, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident and I am writing this email today to plead that you reconsider cutting the funding for this. Especially in the current situation we are in as a nation. We need to band together and help those in need as much as possible. Our homeless population are still people and deserve to have a place to go and die with some dignity and care. Life is hard enough for everyone, we need to show some basic human compassion and not have them suffering and miserable in their last bit of life left to die on the streets. Again, I ask to please reconsider cutting funding this would be such a sad shame. Any type of funding you can allot for this organization would be greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this email, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council Members, I am concerned about the proposed complete cut to funding for The INN Between from Salt Lake City's Community Development Block Grant program. I am a Salt Lake City resident who cares deeply about this compassionate resource that does so much with so little, receives significant volunteer support, and is surely deserving of ongoing recognition and support from our city. Please reconsider your decision and return funding to The INN Between at any amount, to show the city’s support of this vital, meaningful service in our community. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I just found out that the funding has been stop for places like the Inn Between. This place is essential for a lot of people waiting for surgery or getting treatment for Cancer and other medical needs. Hospice for the homeless for those who would having a worse time at a bad time in their life. I hope that you reconsider what you’re doing. I am a registered voter and my voice counts! 261 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I understand that funding will be tight with everything going on but th is program has minimal funding to begin with. Please reconsider. Thank you! Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello, I received an email from a friend with concerns about SLC cutting their funding for the Inn Between. While it represents a low percentage of the Inn’s funding, any more cuts at this time would appear rather devastating because of funding cuts from other private groups. Is there any rationale for cuts to those who would appear to be in dire need of medical and hospice care? I assume patients at the Inn are sheltered in place and there must be restrictions on who may come and go. If not, there should be enforcement of appropriate safe guards. I lost my husband to terminal cancer 2.5 yrs ago after enduring 4.5 yrs of a lot of pain and suffering through treatments and the devastation of this disease. I can’t imagine what lack of care and home comforts would be like for those at the end of their lives no matter the illness. That goes for those who would need skilled nursing and medical care as well. We were so fortunate to have excellent care and medical insurance. I live withint 4-5 miles S of the Inn and am a SLCo resident. Certainly homelessness affects anyone in this area. A shelter was already closed. The homeless disperse throughout the valley and areas near the City and end up in homes or on other streets. It affects many areas and I applaud city and county efforts to address homelessness issues. I’m merely expressing my concerns and have questions. Thank you, and stay healthy. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I urge you to reconsider funding for the INN Between. They offer vital services to the homeless population that no other provider offers. We have been supporting The INN Between for many years and urge the county to do the same. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HELP THEM!!!! They’re doing some of the greatest work!!!! Homeless that are dying need a place to die with dignity, love, care and compassion. We need someone to FIGHT for them!!!!!! They need us!!!!!!!!!!!! HELP THEM!!!!!! Thank you!!!!!!!! 262 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Please do not cut funding for the Inn Between. Other than people who are on ventilators in hospitals right now, I can’t think of any group of people more in need of support than those who are both homeless and ill, some of the terminally. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 A critical component in this community of so many homeless. The INN Between is a functioning resource and will continue with active funding from Salt City and other organizations. The need for funding is now...now. Please. Kim Correa and other staff members are dedicated of course, and the hours and commitment they provide is...well...unreal. A perfect time for CDBG ) funding. Thank you . Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To whom it may concern: I’m reaching out to you as a Service Provider in this community who has benefited from having had a wonderful organization like the Inn Between available to take in and care for Sick Homeless clients. They have been cut enormously over this last few years and I am very much afraid especially having 255 fewer Shelter beds still than we logistically need. I really feel like cutting funding and not increasing it during the Covid-19 crisis would be a bad look. Our Homeless and unsheltered community bear the brunt of our lack of investment in vital community programs when we invest in a continually over-developed city and we don’t even have enough shelter beds even with the Sugarhouse shelter, it feels uncaring and that is not who we are as a community. Please reconsider your decision to cut the CDBG Grant Please consider offering more help to an agency that shows up for our very sick, and dying homeless population. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Thank You, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear City Council- I know there are a lot of competing priorities out there right now. As a 40 year resident of Utah (the Avenues) I’ve supported many organizations. The Inn Between fulfills a unique niche within our 263 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 community and their public funding is essential to them fulfilling their mission. I hope you will consider funding them to the extent that you can and know the people they support need it now more than ever. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I am a hospice music therapist and have had the privilege of serving patients at this facility, and know how valuable it is to the wellbeing of those it serves. Thank you for your consideration. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a resident of SLC and ask they you consider the continuation of funding for the Innbetween, this is a much needed organization and we as the people should help in whatever manner we can. CDBG funding is necessary please reconsider. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Seems like a bad time to cut funding to a homeless shelter that serves unhoused persons with serious health issues! Janine Sheldon Neighbor Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello council members, I’m a resident of SLC and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision regarding The Inn Between (TIB). TIB provides an essential service to those experiencing homelessness and significant and/or terminal illnesses. Any amount of money that could be allocated to TIB would we put important use. Thank you, 264 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Salt Lake County Council Members: I am writing on behalf of the organization Inn Between which provides much needed hospice care for homeless individuals that have nowhere to go. Please do not cut funding which would mean the individuals being helped would have no other means for services . I know you have to budget funding. I know you have to make hard decisions. At a time when everyone has so much to lose, this loss would seem astronomical to the individuals receiving care. Every life is valuable and worthy of dignity facing end of life. We as a people have to do a better job of helping people feel their self -worth. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council, I sincerely hope you and your loved ones are safe and healthy during these uncertai n times. I am a Salt Lake City resident, living a couple blocks away from The INN Between. What they do for those underserved in our community is remarkable. This organization is doing the work no one else wants to do. We should be honoring them, thanking them, and funding them with whatever we can. Any amount makes a difference to them - please do not cut their funding. You must reconsider your CDBG funding decision for their facility. Do the right thing. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 We , as a community need to support the marvelous work done by In Between. Please reconsider your decision for funding this fine organization. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Please continue your support for The Inn Between!! It plays such a vital role in this community and is a model of compassion. 265 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council Members. I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Mayor Mendenhall and Salt Lake City Council Members, I am a Salt Lake City resident. I’ve watched the various ‘assistance programs’ that have existed for individuals experiencing homelessness over the last 12 years that I’ve lived here. Every administration, and even different council members, has had a different impact on the population of individuals that need help. Has all the help had the intended outcome? No. Are we getting there? Perhaps. I realize that there is a lot going on right now. I find myself disappointed to hear with everything that is goi ng on, that you have cut CBDG funding to The Inn Between. I am writing to urge you to reconsider. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their unique program. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear City Council Members, I am the founder and current Nurse Supervisor of The INN Between and am really grateful for all of the support you have provided for this vital agency in the past. Historically we have received about $46,000 from the Community Development Block Grant program. This represents only about 3% of our annual budget yet about 80% of our residents come from the Salt Lake City community. The need is great for all homeless service providers, however, even the small percentage of a cut in our budget represents a significant impact on what we can do to serve this community. I would urge you to reconsider the elimination of funding for The INN Between and know that we will appreciate funding at any level. Sincerely, 266 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To SL City Council Members, I am a resident of salt lake city. In the past you have supported the INN Between. Pleas, please help again by granting money to the INN Between via the block grant program. Thank You! Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello Council Members, I'm writing you to plead with you to continue supporting The Inn Between. The services they provide are truly nonexistent anywhere else. Our low-income, homeless, and formerly homeless neighbors NEED this service. To deprive this population of the option of having a place to die with dignity would be so cruel. As both a social worker and a resident of Ssalt Lake City, I urge you to continue your support. The alternative for many of these folks is to die alone and without the proper care that you or I would be able to receive. Any help you can continue to give them would be truly appreciated. These people are among our most vulnerable. Thanks so much for your consideration, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 To whom it may concern, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Please have empathy and compassion for our homeless community. They have a right to pass away with dignity and as comfortably as possible. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council members, We have been Salt Lake City residents for more than three decades. For the past two years we have been weekly volunteers at The Inn Between, which, as you know, is the nation's first hospice for terminally -ill homeless people, something SLC can be most proud of. It's likely that the COVID pandemic will increase the number of such people, yet the City plans to actually eliminate its financial support for The Inn Between. 267 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 We can well imagine the financial constraints the City must be laboring under during this economic/healthcare crisis. Still, if you have any discretionary funds available, we hope you will continue supporting The Inn Between. Sincerely, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hi, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I live just 2 blocks from the Inn Between and support the work they are engaged with. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Respectfully, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a resident of Salt Lake City, residing at 923 S 1500 E writing to urge you to reconsider CDBG for the Inn Between. Thank you, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Hello Council: I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. As a former volunteer and public relations coordinator for the INN Between, I witnessed the achievement of this small group of people firsthand. I count as friends the residents who passed through those doors. Their colorful and tragic way of living left an indelible imprint that remains as part of the very fiber of my being. The thought of a funding loss for such a worthy program is painfully disheartening and for want of a better word, ludicrous. Given the COVID outbreak, so many homeless are helplessly forced into death even earlier. Denied services by hospitals all across the united states, they face horrendous conditions without help. The INN Between is one of only TWO such facilities in the entire United States able to provide services to those who are terminally ill and homeless. In and of itself, this is shameful. I am at a loss trying to fathom why you would cut funding. 268 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Kim Correa and her incredible staff are tirelessly devoted to ensuring quality care for each and every patient in this facility. For so many of us navigating the waters of COVID and staying alive is actually an ever-present goal. Up to three months ago, it wasn't even a thought. For the residents of the INN Between and all the homeless struggling to stay alive, this is the ever-present reality of daily living. Why would you want to participate in any effort to undermine this herculean effort and support for the downtrodden? Thank you for funding the INN Between, please keep doing so. Save lives instead of taking them away. Truly, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear members of the City Council, I am a Salt Lake City resident who also serves as a volunteer (board member) at The Inn Between. I write to strongly encourage continued City assistance to The Inn Between, particularly at this critical time for the homeless in our City. Respectfully, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a constituent of SLC and I support funding for the Inn Between. Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. Thanks, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 As a Salt Lake City resident who is concerned about the welfare of people experiencing homelessness, I respectfully ask you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount you can fund will help the sustainability of their program, particularly at a time when public health is a concern for all, with vulnerable populations at even greater risk. Thank you for your consideration, 269 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Salt Lake City Council, My name is ___________, a student at the University of Utah and proud resident of Salt Lake City. I am writing to you at this time as an advocate for The INN Between, a remarkable organization that I also volunteer for. The INN Between is an incredibly charitable organization that provides invaluable services to many marginalized residents of Salt Lake City. The INN Between provides a beacon of hope for numerous individuals suffering from homelessness and provides an opportunity for them to get back on their feet and become valuable members of the community. In my volunteer efforts, I have seen firsthand the benevolent services that are provided to the occupants at The INN Between who deeply appreciate the care that they receive. I would ask that you please consider renewing the pu blic funds that are granted to the The INN Between via Salt Lake City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program as this will drastically assist in helping provide vital services for some of the most vulnerable populations of this great city. Thank you for your great leadership for the residents of Salt Lake City during these extraordinary times. Best, Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Dear Council and Mayor - I urge you to please find a way to fund the CDBG request for The INN Between. They do so much with so little, and I can’t imagine a better use of a small portion of my taxes than toward this essential service. The INN Between provides critical care to individuals who are homeless, largely due to terminal health conditions. Please support allowing them to live out their remaining days in dignity, and for those few who recover in their care, be a part of working miracles. Yours in hope and gratitude - Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 6:02 PM To: Council Comments <Comments.Council@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Bridge to Backman Greeting City Council- Thank you for considering the additional funding for the Bridge to Backman. I want to echo James Rodgers’ comments regarding the importance to funding the whole project. If not funded or only partially funded, this would still leave a big empty eyesore in the Westside community. The empty lot we are wanting to improve serves as a message to our community about the investment the city is willing to 270 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 make in us. 900 South, on the Eastside, gets ANOTHER facelift and Rose Park fails to be properly invested in. With the 600N/700N plan underway, this is a great way to beautify and enhance the corri dor. Please consider the importance of the project on a school and community and needs and deserves beautiful spaces to enjoy. Best, Salt Lake City Council. Public Hearing, April 7th, 2020, 7pm, via WebEx, Facebook, and YouTube. Public Comments. Source: WebEx Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Comments: She felt she could help women better outside of the criminal justice system than inside, wanted to address women through a trauma informed lens. Journey of Hope offers services to women with high ACE scores, institutionalized, homeless, evicted, victims of sexual violence and/or trafficking. They have served over 2,000 women in their program. Most will not recidivate if they have supportive services. 17% of their clients do not return to incarceration. They offer mentorship for up to 18 months, and most don’t return to homelessness after their treatment. 200 of their clients haven’t returned to homeless, after receiving their services. Their agency needs the funding to serve people, please reconsider, there are many women and girls aging-out of foster care/Juvenile Justice Services or slated to go to homeless shelters who are getting out of jail. She fears those girls/women going to shelter will be exposed to trafficking or drugs. Source: WebEx Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Comments: Survivor of sexual and physical abuse, she got her first job out of incarceration at Journey of Hope. Journey of Hope could do so much more in the state, they could flip the recidivism rate, which Utah is the highest in the country. It’s difficult to pull people out of poverty if they don’t’ have enough staff support. They’re the only agency that will go into all settings to serve women in the criminal justice system. Their Executive Director understands the issues these girls/women face. Journey of Hope hires survivors to serve other survivors. Please reconsider funding recommendations. Source: WebEx Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 Comments: SVS is a domestic violence shelter that serves people affected by physical or sexual violence, located in West Jordan. Though they serve residents of Salt Lake City through the Salt Lake City Library and the Geraldine King Women’s Resource Center. This allows flexibility to meet survivors at places they’re at instead of their agency. They serve over 400 domestic violence survivors a year. This improves their quality of life. Thank you for recommendation for funding to provide case management in various SLC locations and the support for South Valley Services. 271 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Source: WebEx Date Submitted: 4/7/2020 7:43 pm. With Journey of Hope. Wants to inform you of how her experience working with Journey of Hope has improved her life. With the agency she’s had the opportunity to work with women like her, who are getting out of prison, to get sober and get custody of their children. She’s had the chance to work with domestic violence and rape survivors and women coming out homelessness. She’s been able to turn her adverse childhood experiences and turn it into hope for other women. Journey of Hope has empowered her to move forward and help others find their voice and hope. She hopes the Council will consider them for their funding. Without the funding they cannot help as many women. She wants to thank them for hearing her, and for all that they do. Additional Comments Received After the Public Meeting Source: Email Date Submitted: 4/8/2020 Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:16 AM To: Council Comments <Comments.Council@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) CDBG Funding Recommendations Dear Council Members, I am the Executive Director of Utah Health and Human Rights. We have provided wrap - around services for refugee, immigrant, and asylee survivors of torture for 17 years. I recognize that all the recommended CDBG projects focus on homeless services. I attended all the consolidated plan stakeholder meetings and am disheartened to see that programs that work tirelessly to prevent homelessness have been overlooked such as ours. 99% of our clients have income less than 50% of the MFI. Our clients have overcome the unimaginable in their home countries and continue to face obstacles with mental health, poverty, language and cultural barriers, physical health, and ongoing trauma. We are the only refugee service provider in Utah who provides services without time limits. Survivors can access our services no matter how long that have been in the U.S. and they can actively receive services for as long as they need, whether that is 8 months, or 8 years. Without our services many of our clients would face homelessness, generational poverty and trauma, and chronic physical health needs. I hope that you will consider funding our program as an essential service keeping Salt Lake City families from entering homelessness. Thank you, 272 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY and LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY FORMAL MEETING AGENDA April 21, 2020 Tuesday 7:00 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chris Wharton, Chair District 3 Andrew Johnston, Vice Chair District 2 James Rogers District 1 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Amy Fowler District 7 Generated: 4/21/2020 4:33:58 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. This Council Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building for this meeting. All attendees will connect remotely. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/ • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 273 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 • If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or general comment period, please visit our website or call us at 801- 535-7600 to learn how you can share your comments live during the meetings. • As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an email: • 24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654 • council.comments@slcgov.com More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/ Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council Members. All agenda related comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public meeting record. View comments submitted during the virtual Council meetings. The standard order of the Formal Meeting Agenda will be adjusted to accommodate the electronic meeting. General Comment and Public Hearings will be heard as one item. Speakers may speak for up to two minutes per public hearing item or for a two- minute public comment. We ask speakers to conclude their comment prior to beginning to speak to the next. Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Council Member Chris Wharton will conduct the meeting. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 274 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 4. The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday, March 17, 2020 and Tuesday, March 24, 2020 as well as formal meeting minutes of Tuesday, March 24, 2020. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearings and General Comments will be heard as one item. 1. Resolution: Update and Timeline for the City’s 2020-24 Consolidated Plan Guiding Use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Funds The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would update and approve the timeline for the City’s 2020-24 Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Consolidated Plan details the City’s goals and objectives to build healthy and sustainable communities through four federal grants: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Home Investment Partnerships, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 8, 2019; Tuesday, February 4, 2020; Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday April 7, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Grant Application: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) COPS Office Fiscal Year 2020 Hiring Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would fund the salary and benefits of ten (10) new police officer positions. The new officers would be assigned to the Patrol Division, and the Police Department would assign ten experienced officers to newly created Intelligence-led policing squads which would focus on addressing emerging violent crime issues and repeat violent crime offenders in Salt Lake City. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) 275 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 3. Grant Application: 2020 Grants to Improving Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would fund the salary and benefits for one full-time Victim Advocate position at the YWCA Utah. This new position would replace a current part-time, grant-funded advocate position. This advocate will be co-located at the YWCA Family Justice Center (FJC) and will serve as a liaison to support victims, ensure they receive appropriate services, and are informed about the criminal justice process. If awarded, the grant would also fund police overtime efforts to increase arrests for protection order violation warrants and warrants in domestic violence cases. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 4. Grant Application: Assistance to Firefighters Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would fund eight battery-powered ventilation fans to replace old gas-powered fans for the Salt Lake City Fire Department. The new fans are more compact, can be safely carried by one firefighter, and do not emit fumes. In addition, the grant funding would be used to purchase eight battery-operated, vehicle-mounted extrication units which will replace older equipment to ensure successful heavy rescue extrication on metals used in newer vehicles. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. 276 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 5. Grant Application: 2020 Parks as Community Nutrition Hubs: Expanding Access to Healthy Foods The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would be used to construct a 1,000 square foot outdoor classroom at the Sorenson Unity Center. The classroom will become a community nutrition hub for hosting nutrition and gardening education events, a farmers market, and health and wellness activities for Glendale and Poplar Grove residents. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 6. Grant Application: U.S. Department of Justice Department (DOJ) COPS Office Fiscal Year 2020 Community Police Development Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would fund the salary and benefits of three new part-time Gang Outreach Advocate positions to assist with the Promising Youth Project, a gang intervention and prevention program. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 277 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 C. COMMENTS: 1. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) 2. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. D. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Council will consider a resolution adopting the Mayor’s funding recommendations and an appropriations resolution adopting the One-Year Annual Action Plan that includes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding, for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and approving an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 278 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY and LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY FORMAL MEETING AGENDAS May 5, 2020 Tuesday 7:00 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBERS: Chris Wharton, Chair District 3 Andrew Johnston, Vice Chair District 2 James Rogers District 1 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Darin Mano District 5 Dan Dugan District 6 Amy Fowler District 7 Generated: 5/4/2020 5:11:05 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. This Council Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building for this meeting. All attendees will connect remotely. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/ • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 279 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or general comment period, please visit our website or call us at 801-535-7600 to learn how you can share your comments live during the meetings. As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an email: • 24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654 • council.comments@slcgov.com More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/ Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council Members. All agenda related comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public meeting record. View comments submitted during the virtual Council meetings. The standard order of the Formal Meeting Agenda will be adjusted to accommodate the electronic meeting. General Comment and Public Hearings will be heard as one item. Speakers may speak for up to two minutes per public hearing item or for a two- minute public comment. We ask speakers to conclude their comment prior to beginning to speak to the next. LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES A. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Council/Board Member Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meetings. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 280 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Tentative Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Board will consider approving a resolution adopting the tentative budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020 -21. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 9, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C. CONSENT: 1. Resolution: Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Board will confirm the dates of Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-21. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2019 and Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Confirm the Public Hearing dates D. ADJOURNMENT: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. 281 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Resolution: Tentative Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Board will consider approving a resolution adopting the tentative budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2020-21. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 9, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). F. CONSENT: 1. Resolution: Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Board will confirm the dates of Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-21. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 9, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Confirm the Public Hearing dates G. ADJOURNMENT: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. H. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. The Council will approve the formal meeting minutes of Tuesday, April 14, 2020. 2. Mayor Mendenhall will present the proposed Salt Lake City budget, including the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2020-21. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 282 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Public Hearings and General Comments will be heard as one item. 1. Ordinance: 1172 East Chandler Drive Rezone The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would rezone a parcel at approximately 1172 East Chandler Drive from Open Space District (OS) to Foothills Residential District (FR- 3/12,000). The intent of the rezone is to match the zoning of the property to the east, which is under the same ownership, to allow residential accessory uses on the property after the two lots are combined. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2019-00795 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: 2064 North and 2066 North 2200 West Zoning Map Amendment The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would rezone property at 2064 North and 2066 North 2200 West from AG-2 (Agricultural) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The applicant is requesting the rezone to accommodate future development of the property and implement the area master plan zoning. No site development proposal has been submitted at this time. Although the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to M-1, consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No. PLNPCM-2019-00431. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 and Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 3. Ordinance: Washington Street Alley Vacation The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would close a City-owned alley located at approximately 1040 South Washington Street. The alley is 15 feet wide and approximately 253 feet long. It runs west of Washington Street toward an abandoned Utah Transit Authority (UTA) railroad line, where it becomes a dead end before reaching 300 West Street. The proposal would allow the petitioner to incorporate it into the seven of eight adjacent properties they own. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 4. Ordinance: Cleveland Court Master Plan Amendment and Rezone (1430 South 400 East) The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the zoning map pertaining to a property at 1430 South 400 East. The rezone and amendments would allow the applicant to build a seven-unit development. The proposal would change the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density 283 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Residential to Medium Density Residential and rezone the property from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential District) to FB-UN1 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). Although the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to the FB-UN1 district, consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition Nos.: PLNPCM2019-00189 & PLNPCM2019-00190 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 17, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 5. Ordinance: RECM Investments, LLC Zoning Map Amendment at 347, 353 and 359 North 700 West The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map pertaining to three parcels of property located at 347, 353 and 359 North 700 West to rezone the parcels from SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-family Residential. The request is in anticipation of a multi-family project being constructed at the site. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00638. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 18, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday,May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 6. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment 480 E 6th Avenue The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map for the property at 480 East 6th Avenue from Special Development Pattern Residential District (SR-1A) to Small Neighborhood Business District (SNB). The proposed rezone is to make the current legal nonconforming commercial use in the 6th Avenue structure conforming and allow for a commercial use in the historically residential structure facing G Street. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00813. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, February 18, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 7. Grant Application: 2021 Distracted Driving Prevention Program Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Salt Lake City Police Department that would fund enforcement/education overtime shifts for the Distracted Driving Prevention program. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - 284 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 8. Grant Application: 2021 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Salt Lake City Police Department that would fund crosswalk enforcement/education overtime as well as youth bicycle rodeo overtime. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. J. COMMENTS: 1. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) 2. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. K. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Resolution: Update and Timeline for the City’s 2020-24 Consolidated Plan Guiding Use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Funds The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would update and approve the timeline for the City’s 2020 - 24 Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Consolidated Plan details the City’s goals and objectives to build healthy and sustainable communities through four federal grants: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Home Investment Partnerships, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 8, 2019; Tuesday, February 4, 2020; Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020; Tuesday April 7, 2020; and Tuesday April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2020-21 The Council will consider a resolution adopting the Mayor’s funding recommendations and an appropriations resolution adopting the One-Year Annual Action Plan that includes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding, for Fiscal Year 2020 -21 and approving an 285 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 286 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 APPENDIX C: 2020 – 2024 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN INTRODUCTION The Citizen Participation Plan specifies the policies and procedures that encourage participation by Salt Lake City residents in the planning, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citizen Participation Plan encourages participation from citizens in neighborhoods that receive significant federal funding and from citizens living throughout the City. The Consolidated Plan articulates how HUD funding will be used for the following programs: ● Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); ● Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG); ● Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME); and ● Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). Citizen participation in planning and implementing housing, public services, infrastructure, and economic development activities is an essential step in creating vibrant, livable and sustainable cities that are responsive to resident’s needs. A robust citizen participation process provides residents with an opportunity to improve their environment and equips local elected officials with information regarding their constituent’s desires and priorities. If residents are involved in designing programs that will improve their communities, it is more likely that projects and strategies will meet their needs. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to provide input into all aspects of the City’s consolidated planning activities, including but not limited to assessing needs, setting priorities, and evaluating performance. This Citizen Participation Plan offers numerous opportunities for citizens to contribute feedback regarding ways to provide decent housing, establish and maintain a suitable living environment, invest in infrastructure, and expand economic opportunities, particularly for low-and moderate-income (LMI) persons. Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) will be responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of the applicable plans. The Citizen Participation Plan applies to the following: ● The five-year Consolidated Plan; ● The Annual Action Plan (AAP); ● The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER); ● Any substantial amendments to the five-year Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan; and ● Amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan. The City’s fiscal year begins July 1 of each year and ends June 30 of the following year. Each area of planning has its own schedule and must be maintained to ensure compliance with HUD regulations and eligibility for future funding. In all areas, the City will look to include the use of electronic communication, meetings, training, noticing, outreach, etc. where appropriate so long as it is clearly communicated for participation by the general public. 287 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 HUD PROGRAMS Salt Lake City receives four entitlement grants from HUD to help address the City’s affordable housing, community, and economic development needs. The four grant programs are described below: 1. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG): Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 created the CDBG program. It was reauthorized in 1990 as part of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. The primary objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic development opportunities for person s of low and moderate income. The City develops locally defined programs and funding priorities for CDBG, but activities must address one or more of the national objectives of the CDBG program. The three national objectives are: (1) to benefit low- and moderate- income persons; (2) to aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and/or (3) to meet other urgent community development needs. The City’s CDBG program emphasizes activities that directly benefit low and moderate-income persons. 2. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG): The ESG Program is authorized by the Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 and was amended by the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009. The ESG Interim Rule took effect on January 4, 2012. The change in the program’s name, from Emergency Shelter Grants to Emergency Solutions Grants, reflects the change in the program’s focus from addressing the needs of homeless people in emergency or transitional shelters to assisting people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after experiencing a housing crisis and/or homelessness. The ESG program provides funding to address five program components: street outreach, emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, rapid re-housing assistance, and HMIS; as well as administrative activities. 3. HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME): HOME was introduced in the Cranston- Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 and provides funding for housing rehabilitation, new housing construction, acquisition of affordable housing, and tenant-based rental assistance. A portion of the funds (15 percent) must be set aside for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) certified by the City. 4. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA): HOPWA funds may be used to assist housing designed to meet the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS, including the prevention of homelessness. Supportive services may also be included. HOPWA grants are allocated to Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Areas (EMSAs) with a high incidence of HIV/AIDS. The City receives HOPWA funds that can be utilized in Salt Lake County, Tooele County and Summit County. CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS The City uses advisory boards to assist in the recommendation of funding for these grant programs. CDBG & ESG applications are reviewed by the Community Development and Capital Improvements Program Advisory Board (CDCIP). The HOME & HOPWA applications are reviewed by the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board (HTFAB). These advisory boards are made up of a diverse resident base that allows for additional community input. The recommendation of the board is used by the Mayor and City Council as final funding allocations are determined. If a member of the public is interested in serving on the CDCIP or HTF Advisory Boards, please contact Housing and Neighborhood Development to learn how you can help direct the efforts of the city at 288 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 www.slcgov.com/hand. The City encourages diversity among its boards and encourage constituents from a wide variety of backgrounds, and experiences to apply for volunteerism on this and other city boards. During the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the City consulted with businesses, developers, and nonprofit organizations, as well as philanthropic, community, and faith -based organizations. Representatives from these various entities served on a Stakeholder Advisory Committee and provided valuable input regarding suggested priorities for unmet, unfunded needs. In addition, these stakeholders provided direction regarding the strategies the City could employ to help address those needs with the federal funding available through the Consolidated Plan. This input is reflected in the Consolidated Plan and will help to guide how the funding is used over the five-year period. Salt Lake City will continue to use advisory boards as a way to receive community input and encourage citizens to play an active role in decision making processes. The advisory boards will provide recommendation for funding to the Mayor & City Council for consideration. The Mayor may elect to change which advisory board(s) responsible for review and recommendation of these grant sources, without further impact to this Plan or associated Plans. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY (PHA) The City will provide information about consolidated plan activities to the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) and the Salt Lake County Housing Authority, “Housing Connect.” This will allow HASLC and Housing Connect to make this information available at the annual public hearing required for the Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan. MEASURING SUCCESS The City will explore alternative public involvement techniques and quantitative approaches to measuring the success of efforts related to the Consolidated Plan. These techniques could include various online engagement tools such as online surveys, discussion forums, GIS-based interactive maps with public comment layers, social media analytics, and/or other quantitative approaches. DISPLACEMENT OF PERSONS SLC will adhere to and uphold all requirements under the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970. The City will continue to explore other methods to ensure that displacement is minimized where applicable. PUBLIC NOTICE The City will provide advanced public notice once when a planning activity subject to the Citizen Participation Plan occurs. When appropriate, public notices, announcements, draft documents, and final documents may be provided as follows: 1. Press Releases issued by the Office of the Mayor; 2. Written Public Notices, provided in both English and Spanish; 3. Posting of written Public Notices on the State’s Public Notice website; 4. Email to HAND’s comprehensive contact list consisting of residents, past and present grant applicants, government officials, Council liaisons, interested parties, Community Councils, local neighborhood groups, and City departments; 289 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 5. Post announcements, information, and documents to the City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development website; 6. Information released via the City’s social media accounts; 7. Follow the City’s Public Engagement Guide; 8. The City will use electronic means wherever applicable to reduce the requirement for in person noticing or engagement. To be added to HAND’s email/mailing lists for the purpose of automatically being informed about the federal grant activities and processes, please contact Housing and Neighborhood Development at www.slcgov.com/hand. SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT GUIDE In September 2019, Salt Lake City updated the Salt Lake City Public Engagement Guide. The document has been accepted by the legislative body (though not officially adopted by the City Council), and serves as a framework for use by all Departments, Divisions, and employees as they engage the public in City decisions. The Salt Lake City Public Engagement Guide was developed in conjunction with the Open Government Initiative and principles of the International Ass ociation for Public Participation (IAP2). The Salt Lake City Public Engagement Guide is a tool designed to assist city employees in determining the scope and appropriate level of public engagement necessary for a successful process. Issues of culture, language, income and protected classes come into play when the specific and/or unique stakeholders are identified, based on the characteristics and intent of a particular plan, program or process being discussed. This guide will be used in the programming and implementation of gaining the greatest level of meaningful participation with the citizens of Salt Lake City. PLANNING ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN General Needs Hearing Each year, during the grant application period, the City will host a General Needs Hearing. The public is invited to attend the hearing and provide input on the general needs within their community. This may include gaps in services, housing opportunities, neighborhood improvements, the provision of public service, and other needs. Information gathered at the General Needs Hearing will be used to prioritize funding to address community needs. To reach a wide variety of residents, Housing and Neighborhood Development may outreach to the public using the following forums: 1. Public Notice that meets State public noticing requirements in advance to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list in both English and Spanish; 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office 3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; 4. Request that non-profit organizations and business partners post the English and Spanish notice in a public space in their place of business; 5. Post details of the hearing on the State’s Public Notice website; 6. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. 290 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Grant Application Availability The City will attempt to alert eligible applicants of the application process, training opportunities, and application deadlines when grant applications are available. Outreach may be repeated as often as necessary to ensure outreach is successful. To reach current and potential partners, HAND will provide outreach as follows: 1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; 3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; 4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. Advisory Board Meetings The public is invited to attend and observe all Advisory Board meetings. Per State requirements, all CDCIP & HTF Advisory Board meetings are posted on the State’s Public Notice website. These public meetings may occur in person or electronically, following the State of Utah Open Meetings Act requirements. This includes and is not limited to hosting remote meetings as necessary. During time of emergency declaration, these meetings will continue to follow the State of Utah Open Meetings Act requirements as advised by and under the input of the City Attorney. This includes and is not limited to hosting remote meetings as necessary. Community Input/Public Engagement On an annual basis before the Advisory Boards make funding recommendations for the CDBG, ESG, HOME, or HOPWA funding, the City will conduct a widespread effort to ensure that a wide variety of community members have the ability to provide input into funding priorities. The method of this effort may change from year to year, however, it is always the goal of the City to specifically outreach to community members that are more likely to use the services and programs supported by these funding sources. Each year the efforts will enhance and improve the outreach to vulnerable populations, communities of color, disadvantaged populations, and will always include outreach within CDBG eligible areas and/or areas of high poverty. Consolidated Plan U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements dictate that the City must have a Consolidated Plan. This is a five-year strategic plan that identifies community development and housing needs within the community. This document must specify short-term and long-term objectives that provide for decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunity primarily for persons of low and moderate income. Salt Lake City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is a strategic plan focused on increasing opportunity in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and supporting the City's most vulnerable populations. The five-year plan provides a strategy for maximizing and leveraging the City's block grant allocations to build healthy and sustainable communities that connect and expand opportunities for residents. Many steps were taken to determine the community needs and solicit feedback from the community, interested parties, stakeholders and government partners. Below is a list of events, activities and reports that were completed: 291 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 The public was invited to comment on the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan draft document before adoption by the City Council. Printed copies of the Consolidated Plan Executive Summary were made available for public review and comment for 30 calendar days. The copies were located at Salt Lake City Corporation, 451 South State Street, in the Office of Community Affairs (Room 345), Housing and Neighborhood Development (Room 445), the Salt Lake City Public Library, Main Branch, located at 210 East 400 South in Salt Lake City. An electronic version of the draft Consolidated Plan was posted on the City’s official website during the same period. The final adopted Consolidated Plan will be made available on the City’s official website. Any comments made by the public were reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. Comments and may be incorporated into the final Plan document. Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan The Citizen Participation Plan defines a substantial amendment as: 1. A proposed use of funds that does not address a goal or underlying strategy identified in the governing Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan; or 2. Increasing funding levels for a given project by 100% or more of the previously adopted amount; or 3. Decreasing funding levels for a given project by 100% AND pivoting impacted funds to another approved use during an action plan period; or 4. A change to a regulatory requirement or additional allocated funding from the US Department of Housing & Urban Development that defines that a substantial amendment must be completed. The above list represents the City’s criteria for determining what constitutes a substantial amendment and are subject to the City’s citizen participation process. The public is invited to comment on any Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan before adoption by City Council. Announcements of a Substantial Amendment may be communicated by the following way(s): 1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; or 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; or 3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; or 4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. Printed and electronic draft documents of Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan will be made available for public review and comment. Where allowable, the City will follow the required noticing of 30 calendar days, except for when US Department of Housing & Urban Development allows for a lesser amount of noticing days. If accessible, printed copies will be located at Salt Lake City Corporation, 451 South State Street, in the Office of Community Affairs (Room 345), Housing and Neighborhood Development (Room 445), and the Salt Lake City Public Library, Main Branch, located at 210 East 400 South in Salt Lake City. An electronic version of any Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan will be posted on the City’s official web site during the same period. 292 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Any comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. Comments may be incorporated into the final Consolidated Plan document. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefor, shall be attached to the substantial amendment of the consolidated plan. Annual Action Plan City Council Public Hearing Each year, the Salt Lake City Council will host a public hearing to allow public input on projects proposed for funding. This is one of the two public hearings during the planning process as noted in the General Requirements section of the Citizen Participation Plan. To engage citizens, outreach will be conducted as follows: 1. Public Notice, provided at least 14 calendar days in advance to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list in both English and Spanish; 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office. 3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website. 4. Request that non-profit organizations and business partners post the English and Spanish notice in a public space in their place of business; 5. Post details of the hearing on the State’s Public Notice website; 6. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. The City Council will accept public input from those who attended the public hearing to express their views, either by verbally addressing the Council or providing written comments. Written comments are also allowed by those unable to attend in person, but who wanted to provide their input on the projects requesting funding. The draft AAP will be available for public comment for 14 calendar days. Any comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. Comments may be incorporated into the final Plan do cument. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) Every year, the City must submit to HUD the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) within 90 calendar days of the close of the program year. The CAPER describes how funds were spent and the extent to which funds were used for activities that benefit low- and moderate- income residents. The City will provide reasonable notice that the draft CAPER is available so that residents will have an opportunity to review and comment. The draft CAPER will be available for public comment for 15 calendar days. To engage citizens, outreach will be as follows: 1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; 2. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; 3. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. Any comments made by the public will be reviewed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. The City will consider any comments or views of citizens received in writing, in preparing the performance report. A summary of these comments or views shall be attached to the performance report. 293 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan An “Amendment” to the Citizen Participation Plan is defined as: If HUD has new citizen participation plan requirements, that will be considered amendment. If the City finds that this Citizen Participation Plan no longer meets the needs of the community and decision makers, an adjustment to this Plan will be considered an amendment. This Citizen Participation Plan can be amended only after the public has been notified of the City’s intent to modify it, and only after the public has had a reasonable chance to review and comment on proposed substantial changes. The draft Amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan will be available for public comment for 15 calendar days. To engage citizens, outreach will be as follows: 1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; 2. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; 3. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. Any comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. Comments may be reflected in the final amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefor, shall be attached to the substantial amendment of the consolidated plan. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Public Hearings There will be a minimum of two public hearings during the planning stages of any formal Plan required by HUD. Notices of all Public Hearings will be communicated within 14 calendar days of the Hearing. Public Hearings will also be identified on Utah’s Public Notice website. Public hearings may occur in person, electronically, or by written comment. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids. Public Meetings Public meetings may occur throughout the grant application and administration process. Any public meeting that is being held to discuss a matter of the federal grants discussed herein, will be communicated at a minimum of 2 calendar days in advance of said meeting. Notices of all public meetings will also be identified on Utah’s Public Notice website. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. Please provide 48 hours 294 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids. Non-English speaking In the case of public hearings where a significant number of non -English speaking residents can reasonably be expected to participate, the City will meet the needs of non -English speaking residents by providing translation services and interpreters, upon request. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids. Individuals with Disabilities People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids. Document Access Copies of all final planning documents including the following federal reports will be made ava ilable on the City’s website: ● Citizen Participation Plan ● Five Year Consolidated Plan ● Annual Action Plan Funding Allocations ● Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report Printed copies of these documents are available to the public upon request. Additional reasonable accommodations will be made for individuals with disabilities, upon request. Access to Records The City will provide citizens, public agencies, and other in terested parties reasonable and timely access to information and records relating to the Citizen Participation Plan, Five Year Consolidated Plan, annual Action Plan, and CAPER, and the City’s use of assistance under the four entitlement grant programs. Technical Assistance The City will provide technical assistance upon request and to the extent resources are available to groups or individuals that need assistance in preparing funding proposals, provided that the level of technical assistance does not constitute a violation of federal or local rules or regulations. The provision of technical assistance does not involve reassignment of City staff to the proposed project or group, or 295 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 the use of City equipment, nor does technical assistance guarantee an award of funds. Contact information for City staff is as follows: Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development 451 South State Street PO BOX 145488 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488 801-535-7712 www.slcgov.com/hand CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS Written complaints related to Salt Lake City’s programs and activities funded through entitlement grant funding may be directed to SLC’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND). A timely, written and substantive response to the complainant will be prepared within 15 calendar days of receipt of the complaint by HAND. Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development will work to determine the appropriate course of action, including but not limited to, involving other City divisions, any State or Federal community level resources to help address the complaint to the fullest extent reasonably possible based upon the nature of the complaint. Written complaints must include the complainant’s name, address, and zip code and must be signed by the person(s) filing the formal complaint. A daytime telephone number and/or email address should also be included in the event further information or clarification is needed. Complaints should be addressed as follows: Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development Attn: Director 451 South State Street PO BOX 145488 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1: JAMES ROGERS DISTRICT 2 & VICE CHAIR: ANDREW JOHNSTON DISTRICT 3 & CHAIR: CHRIS WHARTON DISTRICT 4: ANALIA VALDEMOROS DISTRICT 5: DARIN MANO DIST RICT 6: DAN DUGAN DISTRICT 7: AMY FOWLER Prepared by S A L T L A K E C I T Y HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 2 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS I. FIRST YEAR ACTION PLAN AP-05 E XECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................04 AP-05 LEAD & RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ................................................................................12 AP-10 CONSULTATION ...........................................................................................................13 AP-12 PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................27 AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES.................................................................................................33 AP-20 ANNUAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................38 AP-35 PROJECTS ......................................................................................................................41 AP-38 PROJECT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................44 AP-50 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION...................................................................................53 AP-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ...............................................................................................56 AP-60 PUBLIC HOUSING .........................................................................................................57 AP-65 HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES .................................................59 AP-70 HOPWA GOALS ............................................................................................................64 AP-75 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ........................................................................64 AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS ...........................................................................................................68 AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................74 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 3 | P a g e FIRST YEAR ACTION PLAN The First Yea r Action Plan outlines the activities and funding priorities for the first year of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, covering July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 4 | P a g e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AP-05 Executive Summary 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1. Introduction Salt Lake City’s 2020-2021 Action Plan is the product of a collaborative, strategic process that spans community partners, service providers, non-profit/for-profit housing developers, housing authorities, internal divisions/departments, and the input of our citizens. Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) has worked extensively to identify community development needs and establish goals that align funding streams, community priorities and city initiatives. This plan highlights many of the efforts to max imize and leverage the City’s block grant allocations with other resources to build healthy and sustainable communities. The 2020-2021 Action Plan identifies how the City intends to leverage the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutio ns Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids (HOPWA) funding. These four resources will provide for over $5.4 million in support for low to moderate income households or areas of the city. Sim ilar to cities across the country, Salt Lake City is faced with growing income inequality, increasing poverty levels, decreasing housing affordability and diminishing federal resources. We are also grappling with the immediate, mid-term and long-term impac ts of the Coronavirus, which is sure to have lasting impacts on our community. This Action Plan works to address concerns within each of these needs by continuing to develop and refine new and collaborative strategies. The following highlights a few of the initiatives and efforts that the City is excited about: Salt Lake City has gone through a robust community engagement process in the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and the 2020-2021 Action Plan. These planning efforts have provided the City with a clear vision of the needs in the community and a framework for strategic and targeted deployment of funding. The Con solidated Plan will serve as the foundation and guide as the City implements block grant funding over the next five year s. Each program identified in the 2020-2021 Action Plan meets one of the five goals as outlined in the Con solidated Plan and below. Additionally, the programs will serve as the catalyst to implement the strategies tied to each of the five goals. o Housing – Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population will diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. o Transportation – Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation opti ons. o Build Community Resiliency – Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 5 | P a g e o Homeless Services – Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring. o Behavioral Health – Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. In January 2020 Erin Mendenhall was sworn in as the 36th Mayor of Salt Lake City. Mayor Mendenhall’s Administration is focused on breaking down equity barriers within Salt Lake City and providing opportunities for upward mobility for residents regardless of race, income, age or ability. Ensuring a diverse and equitable community is at the foundation of the City’s guiding principles. The City strives to understand the needs of underrepresented residents and will be embarking on a gentrification and equity study in the coming year to help shape future policy and program decisions. Salt Lake City in partnership with Salt Lake County, the State, and community -based organizations is working to rapidly respond to the community impact from the Coronavirus (aka COVID-19) and a 5.7 magnitude earthquake that occurred on March 18, 2020. These tragic events have further emphasized the need for affordable housing in our community and the need for resources has never been greater. The City has applied for PY 19/20 waivers for service providers to provide flexibility and deployment of resources. Additionally, the City is working on a substantial amendment to the PY 19/20 Action Plan, Consolidated Plan, and Citizen Participation Plan in anticipation of the CARES Act funding award. Salt Lake City will have an accelerated, but competitive application pro cess for our community partners to address the immediate and pressing needs as they are responding to the COVID-19 crisis. Salt Lake City conducted a survey in which 37 community partners responded to help the City understand how community and organizati on needs have shifted during the pandemic. These survey results have helped to identify the need in the community and organizational capacity to implement programs in response to COVID-19. Additionally, the City hosted an “Ask Me Anything” on Facebook that provided residents with an opportunity to ask housing related questions. Additionally, numerous outreach materials have been created and distributed to guide residents to services. The City has been a constant leader in the Salt Lake Valley Coalition t o End Homelessness (Coalition) which is a coordinated coalition of stakeholders working collaboratively to end homelessness in Salt Lake County. In the fall of 2019, the Coalition transitioned homeless shelters to a Homeless Resource Center (HRC) model. Th e HRC’s provide residents housing stability and case management services to assist clients in overcoming barriers to self -sufficiency. The HRC’s provide a multitude of services SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 6 | P a g e include housing navigation, job training, employment services, life skills, and connection to community resources. The HRC’s will continue to be an important and critical service in our community and will lift our most vulnerable residents out of homelessness. Salt Lake City supports the Housing First model , that housing is a right not a privilege. This view shapes housing policy and program implementation. Salt Lake City is working closely with community partners to provide opportunities for permanent supportive housing. This model provides the City’s vulnerable residents with critical services to find stability, self -sufficiency, and upward mobility. Small community businesses serve as the life blood of Salt Lake City. They not only provide opportunities for employment but also build the fabric of diversity within the City. Salt Lake City will continue to support our small, locally owned businesses by providing economic development loan funding through City resources. The COVID-19 crisis has impacted small, local businesses at a devastating level. The City is committed to ensuring that small, local businesses are able to open safely, and survive this economic crisis. While this is just a sampling of many of the exciting efforts the city is undertaking to address the needs in our community, it is fair to say that while federal fun ding plays an important role in our ability to leverage and maximize long term impact, it is – and will continue to be a struggle as funding continues to be constantly challenged. As a city we look to other communities, best practices, etc. to find the mos t effective methods of deploying these limited resources. In an effort to engage and leverage best practices across the nation, HAND participates in training opportunities, attends national conferences, contributes to regional planning conversations, and looks for opportunities to advocate not only for affordable housing, but also for addressing the gaps of funding or services that exist in our community. 2. Summarize the Goals and Strategies identified in the Plan This Year-1 Action Plan establishes and addressed several Goals and Strategies as outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. These goals are briefly outlined below. Greater detail is provided in section AP -20. 1) Housing: Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. Strategies: SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 7 | P a g e Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock with in neighborhoods Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure access to continued stable housing Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for income eligible residents Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and end homelessness Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to supporting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation Provide housing and essenti al services for persons with HIV/AIDS 2) Transportation: Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. Strategies: Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experienc e of public transit in target areas Support access to transportation prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas 3) Build Community Resiliency: Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability. Strategies: Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low -income and vulnerable populations includin g, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the c ycle of poverty Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population s 4) Homeless Services: Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Strategies: SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 8 | P a g e Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and su pportive services 5) Behavioral Health: Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Strategies: Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis 6) Administration -- To support the administration, coordination, and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG HOME, and HOPWA programs. Salt Lake City's strategy for most-effectively utilizing HUD funding is heavily influenced by the City's housing market study, the City’s Five Year Housing Plan , the annual Utah Comprehensive Report on Homelessness, and the adopted Salt Lake City Master Plans that highlight strategic neighborhood investme nt opportunities. 3. Evaluation of past performance Salt Lake City deliberately monitors the process of advancing the strategic goals outlined in the newly adopted 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. This plan , like the previous 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan was developed with input from many stakeholders, and it is our responsibility to report back to US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), the residents, community and decision makers the impact of these funds. As we complete the time period associated with the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, here is an evaluation of progress during that time period In preparation for development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Action Plan, Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division reviewed Consolidated Annual Performance Reports (CAPERs) submitted to HUD under the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The CAPERs provide an evaluation of past performance and accomplishments in relation to established goals and priorities. The City’s previous Action Plans and CAPERs can be viewed at www.hudexchange.info/programs/consolidated-plan/con-plans-aaps- capers/. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 9 | P a g e During the course of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, the City has been able to meet the vast majority of established goals and priorities. In addition, the City was able to comply with statutes and regulations set by HUD. SALT LAKE CITY 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS Goal Description Est imated Projected 1 Improve and Expand the Affordable Housing Stock 1,325 1,430 2 Expand Homeownership Opportunities 110 70 3 Provide Housing & Related Services to Persons with HIV/AIDS 725 925 4 Provide Housing for Homeless & At -Risk of Homeless Indivi duals and Families 965 3,217 5 Provide Day-to-Day Services for Homeless Individuals & Families 15,000 7,380 6 Provide Public Services to Expand Opportunity & Self -Sufficiency for At -Risk Populations 35,000 24,385 7 Revitalize Business Nodes in Target Ar eas 75 50 8 Improve the Quality of Public Facilities 1,093 1,344 9 Improve Infrastructure in Distressed Neighborhoods & Target Areas 100,000 139,112 All the goals surrounding homeownership continued to be a struggle as the city experiences a sustained, rapid increase in housing prices and land values. This created challenges on two fronts, one being finding an eligible household that can afford the housing units long term. The other is finding units available to purchase to utilize for affordable housing. Often, single family homes are on the market mere moments before very competitive offers come in. Unfortunately, municipalities are not set up to quickly react as housing becomes available. That often means that the city ends up paying more for a unit that requires a lot of rehabilitation to bring it up to city code. These increased costs must be carefully weighed as housing can easily out price available federal subsidies and regulatory limitations. In 2016, the City launched a new economic development program to address the façade of businesses within the geographic target area of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The reception of the program and impact has been terrific, even though our initial projections proved to be overly optimistic for an entirel y new program. Over the past several years, the City has taken a different approach to homeless services. This includes making a city commitment of over $2 million from general fund sources. As homelessness continues to be an issue that SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 10 | P a g e needs to be addressed, the city took the approach of shifting many of the service providers from this competitive annual process to the general fund. Additionally, Salt Lake City has further invested general fund dollars into homeless services through the Funding Our Future sales tax increase initiative. This shift allowed the city to invest significantly more f unding, provide local direction, closely monitor performance measurements, and provide flexibility that makes sense for the local challenges we face. It is important to reiterate that the city continues to be committed to providing and expanding services for the homeless population. This also means that federal resources are being diverted to address other Plan goals, while the city is taking the opportunity to leverage local resources. Providing public services to our community fell short. Over the past few years, the City modified its strategy for spending in this category, providing more services to a smaller group of people that are in greatest need. This has been a successful strategy thus far, though it does mean the City is serving a smaller total number of individuals. Salt Lake City will soon be receivin g final reports regarding 19-20 funding. This data will drive future decisions about funding allocation. This data will also be fully reflected in the upcoming Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation and Report (CAPER). 4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process Citizen participation is an integral part of the Consolidated Plan & Action Plan planning process, as it ensures goals and priorities are defined in the context of the community needs and preferences. In addition, th e citizen participation process provides a format to educate the community about the City’s federal grant prog rams. To this end, Salt Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stakeholders and community members during the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Action Plan. A comprehensive public engagement process included a cit ywide survey (including 2,000+ respondents), public hearings, public meetings, one-on-one meetings, stakeholder committee meetings, task force meetings, Salt Lake City internal technical committee meetings, and a public comment period. In total, over 4,000 residents participated in providing input into this plan. The City received input and buy -in from residents, homeless service providers. Low -income service providers, anti-poverty advocates, healthcare providers, housing advocates, housing developers, hou sing authorities, community development organizations, educational institutions, transit authority planners, City divisions and departments, among others. For more information on the citizen participation efforts, refer to the AP-10 Consultation . SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 11 | P a g e The City held three public hearings at different points in the process. The General Needs Hearing is an event open to the public to comment on community needs. HAND accepts all comments and looks to understand how federal funding can address these concerns. The concerns that are not within the prevue of the federal funding is passed along to the appropriate City Department. The City Council Public Hearing is an opportunity for the public and non-profit partners to comment on how federal funding may impact their nei ghborhoods or the services being provided. This year, City Council held-over the initial public hearing for a second public hearing two weeks later. This is because the City had just entered into an electronic meeting space due to COVID-19 and Council wanted to ensure that constituents had as much opportunity for input into the process. More detail about these events is available in the AP-12 Participation section. 5. Summary of public comments A summary of the public comments can be found in the appendix of the finalized 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. All comments were received and considered while creating this 2020-2021 Action Plan. In general, the comments submitted through both the General Needs Hearing and the City Council Public Hearing s were very positive. The comments received during the City Council Hearing typically related to the support of funding a specific agency. Topics included homelessness, housing, social service programs, youth advocacy, youth protections, health services, and addressing the special needs of populations such as refugees, aging or disabled residents. While most comments did advocate for a specific organization, many comments were based on sound evidence to make a point about service delivery creating powerful narratives th at advanced the issue being addressed beyond a simple funding request. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 12 | P a g e AP-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 91.200(b) 1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Co nsolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Agency Role Name Department/Agency CDBG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division HOPWA Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Hou sing and Neighborhood Development Division HOME Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division ESG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division Narrative (optional) Salt Lake City was the sole agency responsible for developing the Consolidated Plan and is solely responsible for the subsequent Action Plans. Salt Lake City administers each of the HUD grant programs and the funding sources. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information - Lani Eggertsen-Goff, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Lani.Eggertsen- Goff@slcgov.com or 801-535-6240. - Jennifer Schumann, Deputy Director, Jennifer.Schumann@slcgov.com or 801-535-7276. - Tony Milner, Policy & Program Manager, Tony.Milner@slcgov.com or 801-535-6168. Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development 451 South State Street, Room 445 P.O. Box 145488 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 13 | P a g e AP-10 Consultation 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) Introduction The City engaged in an in -depth and collaborative effort to consult with City departments, representatives of low -income neighborhoods, non -profit and for-profit housing developers, service providers, social service agencies, homeless shelter and service providers, supportive housing and service providers, community stakeholders, community partners, and beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the priorities and strategies contained within the Consolidated Plan. Salt Lake City continues to engage these critical partners regularly as we look to maximize our potential impact on an annual basis. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l)) The Salt Lake City Mayor and key staff worked this year with the State legislature on a bill that has increased access to Medicaid for the most vulnerable members of our community. Proposition 3 and SB96 have expanded Medicaid access to an estimated 70,000 – 90,000 people across the state. Recently, the City has also passed a city -wide sales tax increase which has allotted over $5 million for housing programs across the city. This fu nding source has increased funding for programs that provide housing for the chronically homeless, homeless, mentally ill, children, developers, and people on the verge of becoming homeless, amongst others. The City is also a key participant in Salt Lake County's Collective Impact process which is responsible for coordinating a new homeless care model. This effort is driven by improving service delivery to all individuals who may enter homelessness for any period of time. Lastly, the City is very active in working with State Legislators at crafting legislation that can positively impact housing. Recently this has include working on bills such as SB34, SB39, and SB3006. Each of these bills are critical at supporting affordable housing in the State. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness Salt Lake City representatives actively participated in the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH), the entity responsible for oversight of the Continuum of Care (CoC). SLVCEH’s primary goal is to end homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. The Coalition gathers community consensus to create and fulfill established outcomes. Using these goals, the SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 14 | P a g e Coalition partners with key stakeholders to fill the needs of the Salt Lake County Valley community. City representatives served on the SLVCEH Steering Committee and actively participated in meetings and efforts. Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care 's (CoC) executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care's priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant allocations. Also, the three local Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funders meet regularly to coord inate ESG and CoC activities to make sure service are not being over or under funded and services being funded meet the community's needs and goals. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS Allocate ESG Funds Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care's executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care's priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant allocations. Also, the three local ESG funders m eet regularly to coordinate ESG and CoC activities to make sure service are not being over or under funded and services being funded meet the community's needs and goals. Develop Performance Standards and Evaluate Outcomes The Salt Lake Continuum of Care and the three ESG funders share common measures to evaluate service providers. The three entities also share monitoring results of subrecipients. Develop Funding, Policies and Procedures for the Administration of HMIS The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). All service agencies in the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. TABLE: CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PARTICIPANTS STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 Agency/Group/Organization Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Refugees What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identify ing service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 15 | P a g e was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 2 Agency/Group/Organization ASSIST Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities, Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Non -Homeless Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization tha t assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching p riorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 3 Agency/Group/Organization Columbus Community Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Employment, Pers ons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to d etermine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 4 Agency/Group/Organization Community Development Corporation, Utah Agency/Group/Organ ization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was a ble to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 5 Agency/Group/Organization Community Health Center of Utah Agency/Group/Organ ization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 16 | P a g e outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordinati on? closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 6 Agency/Group/Organization Disability Law Center Agency/Group/Organization T ype Services - Law, Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts , the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 7 Agency/Group/Organization Donated Dental Agency/Group/Organi zation Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consu ltation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assi sting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 8 Agency/Group/Organization First Step House Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Home less Strategy, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, includ ing specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 9 Agency/Group/Organization Habitat for Humanity Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consulta tion? Housing Need Assessment SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 17 | P a g e How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 10 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Housing Authority DBA Housing Connect Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization t hat assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 11 Agency/Group/Organization Intermountain Healthcare Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Impact Investment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine t he overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 12 Agency/Group/Organization Maliheh Free Clinic Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Refugees What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine t he overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 13 Agency/Group/Organization NeighborWorks Salt Lake Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 18 | P a g e What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the over arching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 14 Agency/Group/Organization Optum Health Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What secti on of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assist ed in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching prioritie s and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 15 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeles s What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to dete rmine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 16 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Aging and Adult Services Agency/Group/Organ ization Type Services - Seniors, Aging Services What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these effor ts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 17 Agency/Group/Organization Shelter the Homeless SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 19 | P a g e Agency/Gro up/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticip ated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 18 Agency/Grou p/Organization South Valley Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Domestic Violence What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anti cipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 19 Agency/G roup/Organization Utah Community Action Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Food Bank, Early Education What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Anti -Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allow ed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where fundin g will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 20 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Department of Workforce Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Medicaid, Food, Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Strategy, Economic Development, Anti -Poverty Strategy, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization th at assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 20 | P a g e 21 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Health and Human Rights Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Mental Heal th What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organizat ion that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overar ching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 22 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Transit Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Transit, Transportation What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 23 Agency/Group/Organization Volunteers of America - Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeles s Needs - Unaccompanied Youth, Homeless Strategy, Anti -Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assiste d in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 24 Agency/Group/Organization Young Women's Christian Association Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Child ren, Victims of Domestic Violence, Homeless, Victims What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Strategy, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 21 | P a g e outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 25 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addresse d by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportun ities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to oc cur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 26 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Council Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, City Policy, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity o f leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 27 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Division of Economic Development Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated The City assembled a n Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 22 | P a g e outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 28 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Engineering Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that a re in a geographically focused area. 29 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulte d and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastru cture, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 30 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 23 | P a g e outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Co llaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 31 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Transportation Division Agency/Group/Organization Type O ther Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 32 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Ci vic Engagement Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Hou sing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Th e City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other fund ing tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 33 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Police Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Community Safety, Homeless Services, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federa l funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 24 | P a g e and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations w ill continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 34 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Sustainability Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmen tal - Local Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Nee ds, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to dis cuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. 35 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Planning Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local Planning Organization What sections of the Plan was addressed by consultation? City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City assemble d an Interdepartmental Technical Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The group committed to working collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic development, and transportation efforts that are in a geographically focused area. Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting: All agency types were invited to participate in the process. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan TABLE: PLAN CONSULTATION COMMUNITY PLAN CONSULTATIONS SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 25 | P a g e 1 Name of Plan 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Created in 2004, updated in 2013, this plan highlights initiatives centered on using the Housing First Model to end chronic homelessness. This plan places minimal restriction on persons to place them into safe housing. Housing goals include promoting the construction of safe, decent, and affordable homes for all income l evels and to put specific emphasis on housing homeless persons. 2 Name of Plan Annual Point-in -Time Count Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan highlights an initiative t o find homeless persons living on the streets and gather information in order to connect them with available services. By doing so, this will help policymakers and program administrators set benchmarks to measure progress toward the goal of ending homelessness, help plan services and programs to appropriately address local needs, identify strengths and gaps in a community’s current homelessness assistance system, inform public opinion, increase public awareness, attract resources, and create the most reliab le estimate of people experiencing homelessness throughout Utah. 3 Name of Plan Growing SLC Lead Organization Salt Lake City How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy solutions over the five year period of thi s plan will focus on: 1) updates to zoning code, 2) preservation of long -term affordable housing, 3) establishment of a significant funding source, 4)stabilizing low -income tenants, 5) innovation in design, 6) partnerships and collaboration in housing, and 7) equitability and fair housing. 4 Name of Plan Salt Lake City Master Plans Lead Organization Salt Lake City How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Salt Lake City's master plans provide vision and goals for futu re development in the City. The plans guide the development and use of land, as well as provide recommendations for particular places within the City. HAND utilized the City's master plans to align policies, goals, and priorities. 5 Name of Plan Salt Lak e Valley Coalition to End Homelessness Lead Organization Salt Lake County How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan emphasizes the promotion of a community‐wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness, provide funding for efforts to quickly re‐house individuals and families who are homeless, which minimizes the trauma and dislocation caused by homelessness, promote access to and effective use of mainstream programs, optimize self‐sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness 6 Name of Plan State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The strategic plan establishes state wide goals and benchmarks on which to measure progress toward these goals. The plan recognizes that every community in Utah is different in their challenges, resources available, and needs of those who experience homelessness. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 26 | P a g e 7 Name of Plan Strategic Eco nomic Development Plan Lead Organization Salt Lake City Economic Development How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The Strategic Plan establishes an assessment of existing economic conditions of Salt Lake City th rough analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This information guided a strategic framework that builds on existing strengths and seeks to overcome identified challenges to ensure the City’s fiscal health, enhance its business climate, and promote economic growth. 8 Name of Plan Housing Gap Coalition Report Lead Organization Salt Lake Chamber How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Initiative that seeks to safeguard Utah's economic prosperity by ensuring home ownership is attainable and housing affordability is a priority, protecting Utahns quality of life and expanding opportunities for all. 9 Name of Plan Housing Affordability Crisis Lead Organization Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy brief regarding the current and projected state of rising housing prices in Utah and recommendations regarding what to do about it. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 27 | P a g e AP-12 Participation 91.105, 91.200(c) 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting The City seeks to develop and enhance livable, healthy, and sustainable neighborhoods through robust planning and actions that reflect the needs and values of the local community. The City has stayed true to its values of inclusiveness and innovation by embracing opportunities to provide equitable services, offer funding, and create housing opportunities that improve lives for individuals and families in underserved and under - resourced communities. The City recognizes that citizen participation is critical for the development of a Consolidated Plan that reflects the needs of affected persons and residents. In accordance with 24 CFR 91.105, the City solicited robust citizen participation over the course of an entire year. Between May 2019 and May 2020, over 4,000 residents, stakeholders, agency partners, and City officials participated through proactive, commun ity-based outreach, facilitated stakeholder engagement, and online surveys. The City involved affected persons and residents through stakeholder consultation, a community survey, community events, public meetings, public hearings, public comment periods, and one-on-one consultations. The following provides a synopsis of these efforts. The City created a survey to solicit feedback from residents regarding their priorities for the provision of housing, economic development, and public services in the most u nderserved and under-resourced areas of the community. The survey and all accompanying materials were translated into Spanish, with additional language translation services available upon request. The survey was posted on the City website and social media platforms, third-party digital applications like Nextdoor and was distributed to thousands of residents through the City’s email listserv. In addition, digital flyers with Quick Response (QR) codes were created and distributed to stakeholder advisory and interdepartmental working group members. Members of these groups were asked to distribute the flyer to their respective constituencies. The survey fielding occurred from August 15 through September 30, 2019 with a total of 2,068 respondents completing it. Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. Street improvements, job creation and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic development, and housing investments, respectively. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 28 | P a g e Respondents identified Poplar Grove, Fairpark, and Ballpark as areas of the City with the most unmet needs for underserved individuals and families. The overwhelming majority of residents did not feel that the current housing stock was sufficient to meet the needs of a growing City, particularly for low -income populations, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. Since the survey was open to anyone who wanted to take it, results may have included self -selection bias. To supplement these results with a more representative understanding of resident sentiment, the City also compared them with the recently completed annual resident survey results. Both surveys showed that residents wanted more housing and transportation investments for underserved areas of the community. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 29 | P a g e TABLE: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION OUTREACH SUMMARY CHART Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Att endance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Internet Outreach Survey Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 2,068 Respondents Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. Street improvements, job creation, and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic development, and housing investments respectively. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Other: City Collaboration Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Committee Other: City Departments/ Divisions On average, approximately 30-40 City staff attended multiple meetings to discuss targeted approach to utilizing federal funding sources. Discussions focused o n identifying where the City could collaborate to better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Focus Group Stakeholder Advisory Committee Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of On average, approximately 40-50 representatives from non - profit service providers and government entities attended Discussions focused on identifying where the City could collaborate to better leverage federa l funding, city priorities, and All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 30 | P a g e Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Att endance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Public and Assisted Housing multiple meetings to discuss targeted approach to utilizing federal funding sources. local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. Public Meeting Presentation to City Council Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing Approximately 30 members of the public attended this meeting. Discussions focused on how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Meeting Presentation to Planning Commission Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing Approximately 30 members of the public attended this meeting. Discussions focused o n how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan develope d. Public Hearing General Needs Hearing Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of 1 resident attended the hearing and 2 residents emailed public comments Discussions focused on how the City could better leverage federal funding, city priorities, and local efforts. Topics All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consol idated Plan developed. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 31 | P a g e Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Att endance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Public and Assisted Housing included all areas of City infrastructure, services, and investment. Public Hearing Consolidated Plan & Annual Action Plan (AAP) Hearing Planning Commissioner s, City staff, Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Public Hearing Consolidated Plan Hearing City Councilmembe rs, City staff, Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; No n - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. Other: Community Events Community Events Minorities; Non -English Speaking; Spanish; Person s with Disabilities; Non - Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Over 1,322 respondents Staff attended dozens of community events over the course of the Consolidated Plan development process. Respondents ranked All comments were accepted and taken into consideration as the Consolidated Plan developed. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 32 | P a g e Mode of Outreach Effort Target of Outreach Summary of Response/Att endance Summary of Comments Received Summary of Comments not Accepted & Reasons Assisted Housing homelessness, subs tance abuse & mental health, and transportation services as their top priorities for the City. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 33 | P a g e AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES - 91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction 7 TABLE: EXPECTED RESOURCES Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $14,176,656 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multi family Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $5,030,004 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation, program Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 34 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Multifamily Rental income is typically generated from housing loan repayments from nonprofit agencies Construction Multifamily Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA ES G Administration $301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,216,936 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation amount Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re - Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $600,867 $0 $15,000 $615,687 $2,463,468 Amount for remainder of Con Plan is estimated as four times the Year 1 allocation amount Permanent Housing in Facilities Permanent Housing Placement STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA OT HE R : H OU SI NG – TR US T FU ND Acquisitions $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust Fund has a Admin istration SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 35 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Conversion and Rehab for Transitional Housing budget of $2m and expects to receive a total of approximately $3m in revenue over the next plan period. Homebuyer Rehabilitation Housing Multifamily Rental New Construction Multifamily Rental Rehab New Construction for Ownership Permanent Housing i n Facilities Rapid Re - Housing Rental Assistance TBRA Transitional Housing OT H E R P R O G R A M IN C O M E All CDBG Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000 Salt Lake City Housing Programs – Program Income All HOME Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 36 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total OT H E R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T L O A N F U N D Economic Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000 The fund currently has a balance of approximately $4m. Source: Salt Lake City Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Matches require subrecipients to produce a specific amount of funding that will “match” the amo unt of program funds available. In a US Dept of Housing & Urban Development memo from John Gibbs, Acting Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development (D), dated April 10, 2020, re: Availability of Waivers and Suspensions of the HOME Program Requirements in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, Salt Lake City intends to maximize the waiver and suspension of HOME match requirements. HOME Investment Partnership Program – 25% Match Requirement As per #4 of the above mentioned memo, Matching Contribution Requirements, given the urgent housing and economic needs created by COVID -19, and substantial financial impact the Participating Jurisdiction (PJ) will face in addressing those needs, wavier of these regulations (24 CFR 92.218 and 92.222(b)) will relie ve the PJ from the need to identify ad provide matching contr ibutions to HOME projects. Emergency Solutions Grant – 100% Match Requirement Salt Lake City will ensure that ESG match requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its subgrantees. Funding sources used to meet the ESG match requirements include federal, state and local SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 37 | P a g e grants; private contributions; private foundations; United Way; Continuum of Care funding; City General Fund; in -kind match and unrestricted donations. Fund Leveraging Leverage, in the context of the City’s four HUD Programs, means bringing other local, state, and federal financial resources in order to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. Resources for leverage include the following: Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers Low Income Housing Tax Credits New Market Tax Credits RDA Development Funding Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Salt Lake City Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Salt Lake City General Fund Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund Industrial & Commercial Bank Funding Continuum of Care Funding Foundations & Other Philanthropic Partners If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Salt Lake City intends to expand affordable housing and economic development opportunities through the redevelopment of C ity-owned land, strategic land acquisitions, expansion of the Community Land Trust for affordable housing, parcel assembly, and dispo sition. The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division will work collaboratively with other City Divisions that oversee or control parcels that are owned by the City to evaluate the appropriateness for affordable housing opportunities. Discussion: Salt Lake City will continue to seek other federal, state and private funds to leverage entitlement grant funding. In addition, the City will support the proposed community development initiatives outlined in this Plan through strategic initiatives, policies, and programs. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 38 | P a g e AP-20 ANNUAL GOALS AND STRATEGIES TABLE: G OALS, PRIORITY NEEDS AND OUTCOME INDICATORS Sort Order Goal Start Year End Year Category Geogra phic Area Priority Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 - Housing Expand housing options 2020 2021 Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing CDBG $1,855,073, ESG $135,104, HOME $1,536,677, HOPWA $702,841, 1149 Household s assisted 2 – Transportati on Improve access to transportation 2020 2021 Transportati on City Wide Transportat ion CDBG $45,000 271 Household s assisted 3 – Community Resiliency Increase economic and/or housing stability 2020 2021 Economic Developmen t/Public Services Target Areas/Ci ty Wide Community Resiliency CDBG $530,692 126 Individuals or businesses assisted 4 – Homeless Services Ensure that homelessness is brief, rare, and non -recurring 2020 2021 Public Services/Ho meless Services Citywide Homeless Services CDBG $279,566, ESG $174,000, 630 Persons assisted 5 – Behavioral Health Support vulnerable populations experiencing substance abuse and mental health challenges 2020 2021 Public Services/Beh avioral Health Citywide Behavioral Health CDBG $97,000 299 household s assisted 6 – Administrati on Administration 2020 2021 Administrati on Citywide Administrat ion CDBG $701,833 ESG $22,630 HOME $95,750 HOPWA $18,026 N/A Goal Descriptions SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 39 | P a g e TABLE GOAL DESCRIPTIONS 0 Goal Name Goal Description 1 Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeted rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within the neighborhoods Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for qualified residents Support programs that provide access to home ownership Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and/or end homelessness Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs Provide housing and essential supportive services to persons with HIV/AIDS 2 Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal tra nsportation options. Within eligible target areas, improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit Within eligible target areas, expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation Support access to transportation, prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations 3 Community Resiliency Provide tools to increase economic and/or housi ng stability Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that increase economic mobility Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating commercial buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area Provide economic development support for mic roenterprise businesses Direct financial assistance to for -profit businesses Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population 4 Homeless Services To expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and n on-recurring Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency Overflow Operations Provide support for programs undertaking outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 40 | P a g e Goal Name Goal Description 5 Behavioral Health To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis 6 Administration 5 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 41 | P a g e AP-35 PROJECTS – 91.220(d) Introduction The goals and strategies outlined in Salt Lake City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan serve as the foundation for program year 2020-2021 projects and activities. The Consolidated Plan encourages building resiliency in low income areas by investing in economic development, and transportation infrastructure. These two categories of projects/activities will be limited to the West Side CDBG Target Area. The Consolidated Plan also addresses the need to utilize federal funding to further support housing, transportation, building community resiliency, homeless services, and behavioral health. The Consolidated Plan goals will be supported through the following 2019-2020 efforts: This Year-1 Action Plan establishes and addressed several Goals and Strategies as outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. It is recognized that not every strategy will be accessed each year, however, each year there will be projects that move forward each of the goals identified . Housing: Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. Strategies: Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing sto ck through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure access to continued stable housing Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for income eligible residents Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primar y strategy to prevent and end homelessness Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to supporting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation Provide housing and essential services for persons with HIV/AIDS Transportation: Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. Strategies: Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit in target areas Support access to transportation prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations Expand and support the installation of bike rack s, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 42 | P a g e Build Community Resiliency: Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability. Strategies: Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low -income and vulnerable populations including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses Expand access to early childhood educat ion to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population Homeless Services: Expand access supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Strategies: Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services Behavioral Health: Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Strategies: Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis Administration -- To support the administration, coordination, and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG HOME, and HOPWA programs. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 43 | P a g e TABLE: PROJECT NAME # Project Name 1 CDBG: Public Services: Homeless Service Programs 2 CDBG: Public Services: Build Community Resiliency - Job Training Programs 3 CDBG: Public Services: Behavioral Health 4 CDBG: Hou sing 5 CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development 6 CDBG: Public Services: Transportation 7 CDBG: Administration 8 ESG20: Salt Lake City 9 HOME: Tenant Based Rental Assistance 10 HOME: Down Payment Assistance 11 HOME: Salt Lake City Home Development Fund 12 HOME: Administration 13 HOPWA20: Salt Lake City SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 44 | P a g e AP-38 PROJECTS TABLE: PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION 1 Project Name CDBG Public Services: Homeless Service Programs Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Homeless Services Needs Addressed Homeless: Mitigation, Prevention, Public Services Funding CDBG: $279,566 Description Funding for eligible actives that support homeless resource centers, emergency shelters and other supportive service programs directed to individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Funding allocations are coordinated with local CoC and ESG efforts. Target Date Matrix Code 03T National Objective LMC Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 1 58 homeless individuals including chronically homeless, victims of domestic violence, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable populations are expected to benefit from proposed activities. Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Activiti es will provide essential day-to-day services for the city's most vulnerable populations. Funding will be targeted, in accordance with meeting a national objective, to support the chronically homeless, homeless families, and victims of domestic violence. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: Catholic Community Services, Weigand Homeless Resource Center, $47,000 Volunteers of America, Utah, Geraldine King Resource Center, $100,281 Salt Lake Donated Dental Services, Community Dental Project, $44,000 YWCA of Utah, Women in Jeopardy, $58,285 South Valley Services, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate, $30,000 2 Project Name CDBG Public Services: Build Community Resiliency - Job Training Programs Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Build Community Resiliency Needs Addressed Build community resiliency SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 45 | P a g e Funding CDBG: $104,809 Description Funding for eligible activities that enhance, expand, and improve job training programs as a way to build resiliency and self sufficiency. Target Date Matrix Code 05H National Objective LMC Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 96 adults are expected to benefit from proposed activities. This includes low income residents that are working w ith existing job training programs for those that are homeless, exiting homelessness or low income residents. Location Description Citywide with a focus on assisting residents in racial and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty and local target areas. Planned Activities Activities will provide a cost -effective intervention in increasing self -sufficiency for households for those that are low income and/or living in poverty. Many adults experiencing intergenerational poverty are employed but unable to mee t the needs of their families. Adults and teenagers experiencing intergenerational poverty will be connected to resources that assist them with employment and job training. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: Advantage Services, Provisional Support Employment Program: $64,809 Catholic Community Services of Utah, St. Vincent Kitchen Academy, $40,000 3 Project Name CDBG Public Services: Behavioral Health Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Behavioral Health Needs Addressed Public Se rvices: Expand Opportunity/Self-Sufficiency Funding CDBG: $97,000 Description Public Service activities that provide a behavioral health component for the City. Target Date Matrix Code 05M National Objective LMC Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 299 adults living at or near the poverty level are expected to benefit from proposed activities. This includes refugees, recent immigrants, homeless individuals, persons with a disability, victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable adults. Location Description Citywide with a focus on assisting residents in behavioral health programming. Planned Activities Activities will provide access to behavioral health programs, with an added benefit of connection to stable housing opportunities and building self resiliency. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 46 | P a g e First Step House, Employment Preparation and Employment, $47,000 First Step House, Peer Support Services, $50,000 4 Project Name CDBG: Housing Target Area Citywide West Side Target Area Goals Supported Housing Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Development & Preservation Funding CDBG: $1,855,073 Description Funding for eligible activities that provide housing rehabilitation, emergency home repair, and accessibility modifications for eligible households. Target Date Matrix Code 14A National Objective LMH Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 369 low and moderate -income households are expected to ben efit from proposed activities. Funding will be targeted to elderly, disabled, low-income, racial/ethnic minorities, single -parent, and large-family households. This may include, but is not limited to, multi-family housing or single -family housing. Location Description Citywide with a focus on assisting residents in racial and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty and local target areas. Planned Activities Activities will provide essential housing rehabilitation, emergency repair, and accessibility modif ications to address health/safety/welfare issues for eligible homeowners. Assistance will be provided as grants or low -interest loans. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: ASSIST Inc. –Community Design Center, Emergency Home Repair; Accessibility and Community Design, $391,373 Community Development Corp. of Utah, Affordable Housing and Revitalization: $68,100 NeighborWorks Salt Lake, Rebuild and Revitalize Blight (RRB), $100,000 SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Community Land Trust, $250,000 SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Housing Rehabilitation and Homebuyer Program, $485,600 SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Targeted Repairs Program, $500,000 SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Small Rep air Program, $60,000 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 47 | P a g e 5 Project Name CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development Target Area West Side Target Area Goals Supported Build Community Resiliency Needs Addressed Support access to building community resiliency by providing opportunities for small businesses to thrive Funding CDBG: $425,883 Description Funding for eligible activities that provide commercial rehabilitation in local target areas. Target Date Matrix Code 14E National Objective LMA Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 30 businesses Location Description Targeted outreach in West Side Target Area Planned Activities Activities will include grants and forgivable loans/grants for businesses located in the West Side target areas to make exterior façade improvements and to correct code violations. Eligible costs include labor, materials, supplies, and soft costs relating to the commercial rehabilitation. Planned activities are as follows: Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development: $425,883 6 Project Name CDBG: Public Services: Transportation Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Transportation Needs Addressed Support access to transportation prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations, by offering reduced -fare transit passes to individuals experiencing homelessness. . Funding CDBG: $45,000 Description Funding will be utilized to promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. Target D ate Matrix Code 05E National Objective LMC Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 271 individuals SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 48 | P a g e Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Support access to transportation prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations, by offering reduced -fare transit passes to individuals experiencing homelessness. . Salt Lake City Transportation, HIVE Pass Will Call, $45,000 7 Project Name CDBG: Administration Target Area N/A Go als Supported Administration Needs Addressed Funding CDBG: $701,833 Description Funding will be utilized for general management, oversight and coordination of Salt Lake City's CDBG program. Target Date Matrix Code 21A National Objective Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Planned Activities Activities will include program administration and overall program management, coordination, monitoring, reporting and evaluation. 8 Project Name ESG20 Salt Lake City Target Area County-wide Goals Supported Homeless Services Needs Addressed Homeless: Mitigation, Prevention, Public Services Funding ESG: $301,734 Description Funding will be utilized for homeless prevention to prevent individuals and families from moving into homelessness, and for rapid re -housing to move families out of homelessness. In addition, funding will be utilized for emergency shelter, shelter diversion, outreach and other essential servic es for homeless individuals and families. Target Date Matrix Code 03T SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 49 | P a g e National Objective LMC Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Proposed activities will prevent individuals and families from m oving into homelessness; provide rapid rehousing to quickly move families out of homelessness; and provide day -to-day services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness as follows Part 1 ESG: Shelter Operations, Outreach, Day -to -Day Services: 97 individuals Part 2 ESG: Prevention, Rapid Rehousing, Diversion: 481 individuals Location Description County-wide Planned Activities 1. Activities will prevent household from moving into homelessness and move homeless families quic kly into permanent, stable housing through the following eligible costs: utilities, rental application fees, security/utility deposits, rental fees, housing placement fees, housing stability case management, and other eligible costs. Funding is projected t o be allocated as follows: The Road Home, Rapid Rehousing Program, $40,765 Utah Community Action, Rapid Rehousing Program, $30,000 Utah Community Action, Diversion Program, $30,000 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Homeless Prevention Program, $34,339 2. Activities will provide emergency shelter and other essential services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Services include outpatient health services, homeless resource centers, and transitional h ousing. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: First Step House, Homeless Resource Center Behavioral Health Treatment Services, $60,000 Volunteers of America, Utah, Geraldine King Women’s Resource Center, $38,000 Volunteers of America, Utah, Homeless Youth Resource Center, $46,000 3. In addition, $22,630 will be utilized for program administration for general management, oversight and coordination of the City's ESG program. 9 Project Name HOME: Tenant Based Rental Ass istance Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Housing Needs Addressed Access to affordable housing Funding HOME: $270,000 Description Funding will be utilized to provide tenant -based rental assistance housing to homeless and at -risk of homeless individuals and families. Target Date Estimate the number and type of families 112 families will benefit from the proposed activities. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 50 | P a g e that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Activities will provide tenant -based rental assistance to homeless, disabled persons and other vulnerable populations. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: Utah Community Action Program, TBRA: $70,000 The Road Home, TBRA: $200,000 10 Project Name HOME: Down Payment and Deposit Assistance Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Housing Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Development & Preservation Funding HOME: $200,000 Description Funding will be utilized to provide low-interest loans an d/or grants for down payment assistance and/or closing costs to eligible homebuyers. Target Date Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 13 households will benefit from proposed activities. Location D escription Citywide Planned Activities Direct financial assistance to eligible homebuyers in the form of down payment low -interest loans and/or grants. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows: Community Development Corp. of Utah, Down Pay ment Assistance: $200,000 11 Project Name HOME: Salt Lake City Home Development Fund Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Housing Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Development & Preservation Funding HOME: $1,066,677 Description Funds wil l be used for development activities including acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of existing housing. Target Date SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 51 | P a g e Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities At least 7 households are to be nefit from proposed activities. Location Description Citywide Planned Activities Funds will be used for development activities including acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of multi - family properties and single family homes. SLC Housing and Neighborhood Dev, HOME Development Fund: $1,066,677 12 Project Name HOME: Administration Target Area Citywide Goals Supported Administration Needs Addressed Funding HOME: $97,750 Description Funding will be utilized for genera l management, oversight and coordination of Salt Lake City's HOME program. Target Date Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Planned Activities Activities will include program administration and overall program management, coordination, monitoring, reporting and evaluation. 13 Project Name HOPWA20 Salt Lake City Target Area Metropolitan Statistical Area Goals Supported Housing Needs Addressed Access to affordable housing Funding HOPWA: $600,867 Description Funding will be utilized to provide housing and related services to persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. Activities include, TBRA, Housing Information Services, Permanent Housing Placement, STRMU, and supportive services. Target Date SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 52 | P a g e Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families are expected to benefit from the proposed activities as follows: Supportive Services: 36 households STRMU/PHP/Supportive Services: 65 households TBRA: 66 households Location Description Salt Lake City Metropolitan Statistical Area Planned Activities Activities will include project-based rental assistance, tenant-based rental assistance, short -term rental/mortgage/utility assistance, housing information services, permanent housing placement, and supportive services for persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Funding is projected to be allocated a s follows: Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, TBRA, $510,797 Utah Community Action Program, STRMU, PHP, Supportive Services, $162,044 Utah AIDS Foundation, Supportive Services, $30,000 In addition, Salt Lake City will utilize $18,026 in program administration for general management, oversight and coordination of the Salt Lake City MSA HOPWA program. Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs As entitlement funding decreased considerably over the past decade, the city is taking a strategic approach to directing funding. Priorities include expanding affordable housing opportunities throughout the city, providing critical services for the city’s most vulnerable residents, expanding self-sufficiency for at-risk populations, and improving neighborhood conditions in concentrated areas of poverty. The City and partners are unable to fully address needs due to a lack of funding and resources. To address the lack of resourc es, the City will continue to engage with community development organizations, housing providers, housing developers, service providers, community councils, City departments, local businesses, residents, and other stakeholders to develop strategies for inc reasing impacts and meeting gaps in services. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 53 | P a g e AP-50 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION – 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low -income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Locally-defined target areas provide an opportunity to maximize impact and align HUD funding with existing investment while simultaneously addressing neighb orhoods with the most severe needs. According to HUD standards, a Local Target Area is designed to allow for a loc ally targeted approach to the investment of CDBG and other federal funds. The target area for the entirety of the associated Consolidated Plan period, will be identified as, “West Side Target Area”, as shown on the map below. CDBG and other federal fundi ng will be concentrated, but not necessarily limited to, the target area. Neighborhood and community nodes will be identified and targeted to maximized community impact and drive further neighborhood investment. During this Action Plan period, infrastructure projects such as transportation projects and commercial façade improvements will be limited to this target area. Housing activities will happen citywide, however, a more concentrated marketing strategy for rehabilitation efforts will be deployed in the West Side Target Area as an opportunity to expand housing stability. FIGURE: 2020-2024 WEST SIDE CDBG TARGET AREA SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 54 | P a g e Salt Lake City’s HUD entitlement funds are geographically distributed with the following priorities: The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, suitable living environments and expanded economic activities to persons of low and moderate income. To support the CDBG program’s primary objectives, Salt Lake City is taking a two-pronged approach to the distribution of funding: 1. Direct funding to local target areas to build capacity and expand resources within concentrated areas of poverty. 2. Utilize funding citywide, in accordance with meeting a national objective, to s upport the city’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, food -insecure individuals, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low - income elderly. The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. ESG funding is distributed citywide to support emergency shelter, day services, resource centers, rapid re-housing and homeless prevention activities. The majority of funding is target to Salt Lake City’s urban core, as this is where the highest concentration of homeless services are located. The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for low -income households. HOME funding is distributed citywide to provide direct financial assistance to homebuyers, tenant - based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabilitation. The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and rela ted supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. HOPWA funding is distributed throughout the Salt Lake City MSA, including Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele counties, to provide project -based rental assistance, tenant- based rental assistance, short-term rental assistance, and supportive services. The majority of funding is utilized in Salt Lake County, as the majority of HIV/AIDS services are located in the Salt Lake area. TABLE: GEOGRPAHIC DISTRIBUTION Target Area % of Funds 1 West Side CDBG Target Area 12% SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 55 | P a g e Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically The Target Area was identified through an extensive process that analyzed local poverty rates, low -and moderate-income rates, neighborhood conditions, citizen input, and available resources. A recent fair housing equity assessment (May 2018) completed by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah states that there is a housing shortage in Utah, with the supply of new homes and existi ng “for sale” homes falling short of demand. While the impact of higher housing prices is widespread, affecting buyers, sellers, and renters in all income groups, the report concludes that those households below the median income, and particularly low -income households, are disproportionately hurt by higher housing prices. In fact, households with incomes below the median have a 1 in 5 chance of a severe housing cost -burden, paying at least 50% of their income toward housing, while households with incomes a bove the median have a 1 in 130 chance.1 Discussion The City’s west side and central corridor continue to have economic disparities that can be addressed through investments of CDBG funding. Expanding and building upon the target areas of the 2015 -2019 Consolidated Plan, will allow the city to continue to focus resources in a meaningful way. The first year of this plan is a transition year and will see a small level of investment at approximately 12%. The city will look to grow that in future years that w ill ultimately end up in investments closer to 35% on an annual basis. While not limited to the target area, housing rehabilitation efforts will be heavily marketed in the target area. For the 2020 -2021 Action Plan, this includes efforts of partners such a s ASSIST, NeighborWorks, and Salt Lake City ’s Housing & Neighborhood Development (HAND). Each organization provides housing rehabilitation services targeted to low-to-moderate income households. Marketing these programs will help ensure that aging housing stock does not fall into disrepair or become blighted. Throughout this Plan period and beyond, t he City will leverage and strategically target funding for neighborhood improvements, transportation improvements, and economic development to maximize impact w ithin targeted neighborhoods. 1 James Wood, Dejan Eskic and D. J. Benway, Gardner Business Review, What Rapidly Rising Prices Mean for Housing Affor dability, May 2018. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 56 | P a g e AP-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Introduction The Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) is committed to lessening the current housing crisis that is affecting Salt Lake City, and all U.S. cities, thr ough a range of robust policy and project initiatives to improve housing affordability for all residents, with an emphasis on households earning 40% AMI or below. One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless: 378 Non -Homeless: 1365 Special Needs: 65 TOTAL: 1808 One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Discussion The City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) is committed to lessening the current housing crisis that is affecting Salt Lake City, and all U.S. cities, through a range of robust policy and project initiatives to improve housing affordability f or all residents, with an emphasis on households earning 40% AMI or below. To guide these initiatives, in December 2017, the City approved Growing SLC, A Five Year Housing Plan, 2018- 2022, a thoughtful, data-driven strategy for ensuring long-term affordability and preservation while continuing to enhance neighborhoods, while balancing their unique needs. Salt Lake City will support affordable housing activities in the coming year by utilizing the following federal community development funding programs: CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA. Affordable housing activities will provide subsidies for individuals and families ranging from 0% to 80% AMI. Activities will include: Tenant-based rental assistance; Short-term rental/utility assistance; Rapid re-housing; Homeowner housing rehabilitation ; and Direct financial assistance for eli gible homebuyers. Rental Assistance: 492 The Production of New Units: 7 Rehab of Existing Units: 257 Acquisition of Existing Units: 23 TOTAL: 790 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 57 | P a g e AP-60 PUBLIC HOUSING Introduction The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) is responsible for managing the public housing inventory, developing new affordable housing units and administering the Housing Choice voucher programs for the City. The Authority strives to provide affordable housing opportunities throughout the community by developing new or rehabilitating existing housing that is safe, decent, and afford able – a place where a person’s income level or background cannot be identified by the neighborhood in which they live. In addition to the development and rehabilitation of units, the HASLC also manages several properties emphasizing safe, decent, and aff ordable housing that provides an enjoyable living environment that is free from discrimination, efficient to operate, and remains an asset to the community. The HASLC maintains a strong financial portfolio to ensure flexibility, sustainability, and continu ed access to affordable tax credits, foundations, and grant resources. As an administrator of the City’s Housing Choice voucher programs, the Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental assistance to low -income families (50% of area median income and b elow). This program provides rental subsidies to 3,000 low -income families, disabled, elderly, and chronically homeless clients. Other programs under the Housing Choice umbrella include: Housing Choice Moderate Rehabilitation; Housing Choice New Construction; Project Based Vouchers; Multifamily Project Based Vouchers; Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers; Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS; and Shelter plus Care Vouchers. Under these other Housing Choice programs, the HASLC provided ren tal subsidies to additional qualified program participants. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing HASLC continues to build a strong portfolio of new properties and aggressively apply for additional vouchers. As part of a strategic planning process held with Commissioners, staff, and residential leaders, HASLC has also identified several goals for 2020-2021. Among these goals are increased focus on assisting local leaders and agencies respond to homelessness in the City as well as developing and attaining more capacity for additional living units through real estate activities, rehabilitation, pursuing new Shared Housing (previously referred to as Single Room Occupancy) projects, developing increased relationships and services targeting and attracting landlords, and sophisticated management of HUD programs. In April 2019, HASLC broke ground on Pamela’s Place a new 100 unit PSH project for chronically homeless individuals. This project is anticipated to be completed in August 2020. HASLC also utilizes HUD RAD to preserve and improve their many properties . SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 58 | P a g e HASLC continues to look for ways to expand their portfolio by identifying challenging properties and continuing to develop catalytic and transformative projects and progra mming. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership Both HASLC and Housing Connect have active monthly tenant meetings and encourage participation in management decisions related to the specific housing communities. Housing Connect has a Resident Advisory Board that has representatives from public housing, Section 8, and special needs programs. A member of the Resident Advisory Board is appointed to the Housing Connect’s Board of Comm issioners. HASLC operates Family Self -Sufficiency programs that address areas of improving personal finances and homeownership preparation for voucher recipients. If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Housing Connect and HASLC are both designated as high performers. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 59 | P a g e AP-65 HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES Introduction Salt Lake City works with a large homeless services community to reduce the number of pe rsons experiencing homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals experience homelessness, increase successful transitions out of homelessness, and reduce the number of instances that clients may return to homelessness. Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care’s executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care’s priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant allocations. The three local ESG funders also meet regularly t o coordinate ESG and CoC activities to ensure an accurate level of funding is provided to match the community’s service needs and goals. Additionally, the City participates in Salt Lake County’s Coalition to End Homelessness and the State Homeless Coordinating Council to further coordinate efforts. The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer HMIS. All service agencies in the region and the rest of the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ES G funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. A representative from Salt Lake City sits on the HMIS Steering C ommittee. HMIS data allows Salt Lake City and its partners to track the effectiveness of programs and gauge the continuing service needs of the community. The State of Utah, in coordination with local service providers and volunteers, conduct an annual Point In Time count at the end of January to count sheltered (emergency shelter and transitional housing) and unsheltered homeless individuals. Unsheltered homeless individuals are counted by canvassing volunteers. The volunteers use the VI-SPDAT assessment tool to interview and try to connect unsheltered homeless individuals into services. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Salt Lake City’s primary homeless services goal is to help homeless individuals and families ge t off the street and into permanent housing. In the short term, Salt Lake City will continue to provide collaborative services to the homeless population. Salt Lake City recognizes that not every homeless individual is alike and because of that, there is no one size fits all solution. There is a wide variety of homeless subpopulations in the greater community. Each of these groups have different needs that Salt Lake City focuses on in order to provide the best services possible. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 60 | P a g e There are groups of chronic homeless individuals, veterans, families, women with children, youth, and homeless-by-choice in the greater community. Each of these groups have different needs and each stage of homelessness must also be considered. The four stages of homelessness are prevention (keeping people from dropping into homelessness with jobs and affordable housing), homelessness (helping with daily needs – lockers, showers, etc.), transcending homelessness (finding housing, employment), preventing recurrence (offering supportive services to housing). If the four stages are not considered for each group, efforts will eventually be unsuccessful. Personalized one-on-one outreach to homeless individuals providing information about the specific services that individual needs (e.g., housing, mental health treatment, a hot meal) is the most effective outreach approach. Salt Lake City is exploring how to introduce lived experience peer support assistance as outreach teams work with unsheltered homeless individuals. Salt Lake City works regularly with various community partners that provide outreach and assessment of individuals experiencing homelessness including Catholic Community Services; Volunteers of America, Utah; the Department of Veterans Affairs; The Road Home and others. In 2016, Salt Lake City opened the Community Connection Center (CCC) located in the primary homeless services area of the City. The CCC operates as a drop-in center and employs social workers that assess individuals’ needs and help connect people with availa ble housing and supportive services. The CCC has been successful in filling the need for additional homeless outreach and case management services in the City. The work of the CCC is continuing through 2020 and continues to be a support space as Salt Lake City looks to readdress homeless services in our community . Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Starting with the State of Utah’s Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, most efforts to deal with homelessness in Utah rely on the Housing First m odel. Although the ten year plan has sunset, the programs and direction are still being implemented throughout the State. The premise of Housing First is that once homeless individuals have housing, they are more li kely to seek and continue receiving services and can search for employment. The Housing First m odel has been effective in Salt Lake City, though meeting the varied housing needs of this population can be challenging. The homeless housing market needs more permanent supportive housing, housing vouchers, affordable non -supportive housing, and housing located near transit and services. Salt Lake City is working towards new solutions in these areas as outlined in the City’s adopted five-year housing plan, Growing SLC . SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 61 | P a g e There is a continued need for day services to meet the basic needs of persons experiencing homelessness. Needed daytime services include bathrooms, laundry, safe storage for their life’s belongings, mail receipt, and an indoor area to “hang out”. Salt Lake City addresses these issues by supporting shelters, day services, and providing a free storage program. These things were all considered in the recent creation of the homeless resource centers. These centers also provide food services and look to be all inclusive, one stop shop for services and connection to community resources. This shift in how homeless services are provided will help the community realize our goal that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Moving forward, Salt Lake C ity will aim to assist homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. The City plays an important role by providing strategic funding for the valuable efforts undertaken by other stakeholders and, at times, filling in g aps in essential services. The City can also lend its voice and political weight to lobby for changes in policy, regulation, and statutes as needed to facilitate a comprehensive and effective approach to addressing homelessness and related issues. Salt Lake City’s newly adopted housing plan, Growing SLC, includes efforts to provide affordable housing options along with the spectrum of housing including permanent supportive housing, transition in place, tenant based rental assistance, and affordable non -supportive housing. Shelter the Homeless, Collective Impact to End Homelessness Steering Committee, and the Salt Lake City Continuum of Care voted in support of merging these two entities into a new homeless system structure called the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. This Coalition’s primary goals are to prevent and end homelessness in the Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it moves forward. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to pe rmanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 62 | P a g e Salt Lake City and its service partners work with homeless individuals to help them successfully transition from living on the streets or shelters and into permanent housing or independent liv ing. Salt Lake City has been working with service partners and other governmental agencies through the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH). This includes work on various subgroups that focus on specific areas of service, including housing and coordinated entry. Salt Lake City has the goal to help streamline service delivery to the homeless community with the express purpose of shortening the period that individuals and families experience homelessness. Salt Lake City has also funded th e creation of new permanent supportive housing units and programs which serve the most vulnerable members of our community. Progress is being made on both goals. Salt Lake City and its partner, the Road Home, are continuing to operate the House 20 program. The House 20 program engages with some of the most vulnerable members of our community, the majority of whom are now in stable housing. Through the City’s Funding Our Future efforts, the City has funded a variety of housing programs that aim to fill in gaps in services in our community. These programs include a new shared housing pilot program and housing programs which target families with children, individuals with substance use disorders, refugees, and victims of domestic violence. Salt Lake City has provided funding to support the creation of a combined 280 new units of permanent supportive housing that are at various stages of development in the City. 175 of these PSH units are slated for completion within the calendar year. These permanent supportive housing units have been identified by the Salt Lake Continuum of Care as a need in the larger homeless services community. Salt Lake City continues to make progress on our 5-year housing plan, Growing SLC, which seeks to improve the housing market in the City by focusing on three primary goals: Reforming City practices to promote a responsive, affordable high -opportunity housing market; Increasing housing opportunities for cost-burdened households; and Building a more equitable city. Through implementation of Growing SLC and the funding of housing programs through Funding our Future and Federal dollars, Salt Lake City is working to increase access to affordable housing units for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. These efforts will he lp shorten the period of time individuals and families experience homeless and prevent recently homeless individuals and families from falling back into homelessness. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extreme ly low- SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 63 | P a g e income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs Salt Lake City, along with other organizations in the Salt Lake Continuum of Care, work to prevent and divert individuals and families from experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah all provide funding to Utah Community Action for short -term rental assistance to families at risk of falling into homelessness. Discussion Salt Lake City is reducing and ending homelessness in the community through strong collaborations with partner organizations throughout the Salt Lake Continuum of Care. Salt Lake City works closely with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and serv ice providers to stop families from dropping into homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals and families experience homelessness, help individuals and families successfully transition out of homelessness, and keep individuals and families from re scinding back into homelessness. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 64 | P a g e AP-70 HOPWA GOALS One year goals for the number of households to be provided housing through the use of HOPWA for Short-term Rent, Mortgage, and Utility Assistance Payments: 65 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: 66 Units Provided in Permanent Housing Facilities Developed, Leased, or Operated with HOPWA Funds: 0 Units provided in Transitional Short -Term Housing Facilities Developed, Leased, or Operated with HOPWA Funds: 0 TOTAL: 131 AP-75 ACTION PLAN BARRIERS TO AFFOR DABLE HOUSING Introduction As discussed in sections MA -40 and SP-55 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, several barriers to the development and preservation of affordable housing exist within Salt Lake City, including the following: Land costs Construction costs Housing and transportation costs Development and rehabilitation financing Housing rehabilitation complexities Foreclosures and loan modifications Neighborhood market conditions Economic conditions Land use regulations Development fees and assessmen ts Permit processing procedures Environmental review procedures Lack of zoning and development incentives Complicated impact fee waiver process Competition for limited development incentives Landlord tenant policies NIMBY’ism While not all of these barriers can be addressed during with federal funding, d uring the 2020-2021 program year, the City will work to reduce barriers to affordable housing through the following planning efforts and initiatives: SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 65 | P a g e Growing SLC: A Five-Year Plan, 2018-2022: The City has f ormally adopted a housing plan that is addressing the barriers listed above and has served as a catalyst on a local and regional level to focus on the housing crisis. The plan provides an assessment of citywide housing needs, with emphasis on the availability and affordability of housing, housing needs for changing demographics, and neighborhood-specific needs. Growing SLC identifies several goals to remove barriers to affordable housing. Those goals include reforming City practices to promote a responsive , affordable, high- opportunity housing market; increase housing opportunities for cost -burdened households; and building a more equitable City. Homeless Strategies: Salt Lake City works collaboratively with service providers, local municipalities, the State of Utah, the Continuum of Care, and other stakeholders through the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (Coalition) to ensure a regional and concerted effort to address homeless issues within the City. The structure of the Coalition provides a succinct network for data collection, resource deployment, and service implementation. The City will continue to play a critical and visionary role in the Coalition in the coming year. Home Ownership Options: The City has launched a new program for homeo wnership, Welcome Home SLC. The program provides low to moderate-income families the opportunity to purchase a home in Salt Lake City. It will help stabilize communities, provide incentive for neighborhood investments, and allow families to build wealth. C ommunity Land Trust: Salt Lake City has launched a Community Land Trust that will allow donated and trusted land to maintain perpetual affordability while ensuring the structure on the land, the home, is purchased, owned, and sold over time to income-qualifying households, just as any other home would be. By holding the land itself in the trust, the land effectively receives a write down each time the home is sold, insulating the property for growing land costs but still allowing equity to be built by the homeowner. Funding Our Future: Will provide additional funding during FY 20-21 to increase housing opportunities in Salt Lake City through a new .5% sales tax increase approved by Council in May 2018. Leverage Public Land: The City has been and will cont inue to look at City owned properties as an investment in affordable housing. Additionally, proceeds from development on public land could be used for future affordable housing development. Redevelopment Agency: The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency has committed $17 million since 2017 to address affordable housing efforts in the City, with a specific focus on areas with high land values. Housing Trust Fund: The Housing Trust Fund was created in 2000 to provide financial assistance to support the development and preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake City. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 66 | P a g e Eligible activities include acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multifamily rental properties and single-family homeownership. Additional assistance rel ating to housing for eligible households also may include project or tenant -based rental assistance, down payment assistance and technical assistance. Applications for funding can be accepted year -round and are approved through a citizen’s advisory board, the Mayor and the City Council. Policy: The City is continually evaluating policies that may impede the development of affordable housing. A few policy changes the City is considering over the coming year include an Affordable Housing Overlay zoning ordinance, Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance amendment, and a Single Room Occupancy (SRO)/Shared Housing ordinance. Actions planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use co ntrols, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment Salt Lake City will work to remove or ameliorate public policies that serve as barrier s to affordable housing through the following efforts: Affordable Housing Development Incentives: Zoning and fee waiver incentives will be implemented and/or strengthened, including the following: o Review the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance to ensu re that the city’s stock of inexpensive housing isn’t rapidly being replaced by more expensive units. o Develop an Affordable Housing Overlay zone that allows for and provides incentives for the creation and preservation of affordable housing. o Evaluate the desire for a Single Room Occupancy (SRO)/Shared Housing ordinance that allows for SRO’s in single-family neighborhoods throughout the City. o Off-Street Parking Ordinance update to improve pedestrian -scale development and amenities. o Low-Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning amendments to remove local zoning barriers to housing density and types of housing. Leverage Public Resources for Affordable Housing Development: Public resources, including city - owned land, will be leveraged with private resources for affordable housing development. Funding Targeting: The Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development is evaluating ways to coordinate and target affordable housing subsidies more effectively, to include the coordination of SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 67 | P a g e local funding sources (Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Salt Lake County funding, etc.). Implement Fair Housing Action Items: Salt Lake City will work to remove and/or ameliorate housing impediments for protected classes through action items as identi fied in the City’s 2020-2024 Fair Housing Action Plan. Utilize Federal Funding to Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities: Utilize CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funding to expand housing opportunity through homeowner rehabilitation, emergency home repair, acquisition/rehabilitation, direct financial assistance, tenant -based rental assistance, project- based rental assistance, and rapid re-housing. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 68 | P a g e AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS Introduction This section outlines Salt Lake City’s efforts to carry out the following: Address obstacles to meeting underserved needs Foster and maintain affordable housing Reduce lead-based paint hazards Reduce the number of poverty -level families Develop institutional structure Enhance coordination between public and private housing and soci al service agencies Radon Mitigation Policy Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The most substantial impediment in meeting underserved needs is a lack of funding and resources. Strategic shifts identified through Salt Lake Ci ty’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan provide a framework for maximizing and leveraging the City's block grant allocations better focus funding to address underserved needs. Underserved needs and strategic actions are as follows: Underserved Need: Affordable h ousing Actions: Salt Lake City is utilizing federal and local resources to expand both rental and homeownership opportunities. In addition, the City is utilizing public land to leverage private capital for the development of affordable housing. These efforts will work to address the affordable housing gap in Salt Lake City. Underserved Need: Homelessness Actions: Salt Lake City is working with housing and homeless service providers to coordinate and streamline processes for service delivery. By utilizing th e VI-SPDAT pre-screen survey, providers are able to access and prioritize services based on chronicity and medical vulnerability. These efforts will assist in addressing unmet needs by utilizing resources more effectively. Underserved Need: Special needs individuals. Actions: Salt Lake City is working to address underserved needs for refugees, immigrants, the elderly, victims of domestic violence, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and persons with a disability by providing resources for basic needs, as well as resources to expand self -sufficiency. For example, federal funding is utilized to provide early childhood education for refugees and other at -risk children; improve immediate and long-term outcomes for persons living with HIV/AIDS; and provide job trainin g vulnerable populations; and provide medical services for at risk populations. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 69 | P a g e Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City is committed to foster and maintain affordable housing throughout our City. This is evident through identifying specific gaps that exist in the community, and then designing affordable housing efforts specifically to address these needs. The City has developed an aggressive strategy to develop, preserve and assist affordable housing over the next two years. The initiative aims to target households earning 80% AMI and below, with emphasis on households earning 40% AMI and below. Through this housing initiative and efforts identified in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City aims to: Address the City’s aff ordable housing shortage for those most in need. Address housing needs for Salt Lake City’s changing demographics. Address neighborhood specific needs, including the following: o Protect affordability in neighborhoods where affordability is disappearing. o Promote affordability in neighborhoods with a lack of affordable housing. Preserve the City’s existing affordable housing stock. Strengthen the City’s relationship with our housing partners, financial institutions, and foundations. Support those who develop and advocate for affordable housing. Toward this end, Salt Lake City will foster and maintain affordable housing during the 201 9-2020 program year through the following actions: Utilize CDBG funding to support owner-occupied rehabilitation for households at 80% AMI and below. Utilize CDBG and HOME funding for acquisition and rehabilitation of dilapidated and blighted housing. Utilize ESG, HOME and HOPWA funding to create housing opportunities for individuals and households at 30% AMI and below through Tenan t-Based Rental Assistance and Rapid Re-Housing. Utilize CDBG and HOME funding for direct financial assistance to homebuyers at 80% AMI and below. Promote the development of affordable housing with low income housing tax credits, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City’s HOME Development fund and other funding sources. Leverage public resources, including publicly owned land, with private capital for the development of affordable housing. Work to ameliorate and/or eliminate housing impediments for protected classes as outlined in the Fair Housing Action Plan. Work to leverage other city resources such as Redevelopment Agency funding/strategies, maximize sales tax housing funding, and other sources as they are identifi ed with federal funding where applicable. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 70 | P a g e Salt Lake City has launched a new Community Land Trust that currently has six properties, with plans to increase the number of properties in the coming years. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards Because of the high percentage of the housing units in Salt Lake City that were built before 1978, outreach and education efforts must continue. As such, the City has implemented a plan to address lead issues in our residential rehabilitation projects. The Ci ty’s Housing Rehabilitation Program is in compliance with HUD’s rules concerning identification and treatment of lead hazards. Du ring the 2020-2021 program year, Salt Lake City will work in conjunction with our partners on the state and county levels to ed ucate the public on the dangers posed by lead based paint, to include the following: Undertake outreach efforts through direct mailings, the Salt Lake City website, various fairs and public events, and the local community councils. Provide materials in Spanish to increase lead-based paint hazard awareness in minority communities. Partner with Salt Lake County’s Lead Safe Salt Lake program to treat lead hazards in the homes of children identified as having elevated blood levels. Emphasize lead hazards in our initial contacts with homeowners needing rehabilitation. Work with community partners to encourage local contractors to obtain worker certifications for their employees and sub-contractors. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty -level families In a strategic effort to reduce the number of households living in poverty and prevent households at risk of moving in to poverty from doing so, Salt Lake City is focusing on a two -pronged approach: 1. Creating neighborhoods of opportunity to build capacity and expand resources within concentrated areas of poverty. 2. Support the city’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, food-insecure individuals, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low-income elderly. The City’s anti-poverty strategy aims to close the gap in a number of socioeconomic indicators, such as improving housing affordability, school -readiness of young children, employment skills of at-risk adults, access to transportation for low-income households, and access to fresh foods for food -insecure families. Efforts will focus on the following objectives: Assist low -income individuals to maximize their incomes. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 71 | P a g e Reduce the linkages between poor health and poverty. Ex pand housing opportunities. Reduce the impacts of poverty on children. Ensure that vulnerable populations have access to supportive services. Federal entitlement f unds allocated through this 2020-2021 Action Plan will support the City’s anti -poverty strategy through the following efforts: Provide job training for vulnerable populations. Provide early childhood education to limit the effects of intergenerational poverty. Provide essential supportive services for vulnerable populations. Provide housing rehabilitation for low -income homeowners. Expanded affordable housing opportunities. Improved neighborhood/commercial infrastructure in West Side Target Area. Enhance support for small businesses and micro-enterprise businesses. Reduce food insecurities for low income households. Actions planned to develop institutional structure As outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City is building upon the 2019-2015 Plan and continuing to take a coordinated and strategic shift in allocating federal entitl ement funds to place a stronger emphasis on community needs, goals, objectives and outcomes. This includes the following efforts to strengthen and develop institutional structure: Geographically target infrastructure and economic development funding to areas of the city with higher poverty rates, lower incomes, reduced access to transportation Increase coordination between housing and supportive service providers to reduce/eliminate duplicative efforts, encourage partnerships, increase transparency, and sta ndardize processes. Strengthen support for the city’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low-income elderly. Support housing efforts that connect residents with supportive services and programs that improve self-sufficiency. Offer technical assistance to agencies implementing projects with CDBG, ESG, HOME, and/or HOPWA funding to ensure compliance and support of program objective s. Support employee training and certifications to expand the internal knowledge base on HUD programs, as well as housing and community development best practices. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 72 | P a g e Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies Salt Lake City recognizes the importance of coordination between supportive service and housing providers in meeting priority needs. Stakeholders have been working towards developing and implementing a streamlined and effective delivery system to include the following efforts: Created and implemented a no wrong door approach to accessing housing and other services. Increased coordination through the Salt Lake Continuum of Care, Salt Lake Homeless Coordinating Committee, Salt Lake County Collecti ve Impact Committee, and State Homeless Coordinating Council. Coordinated assessments to help individuals and families experiencing homeless move through the system faster. Coordinated diversion and homeless prevention resources to reduce new entries into homelessness. Coordinated efforts to house the highest users of the homeless services and provide trauma informed case management. Improved weekly “housing triage” meetings that provide a format for developing a housing plan for homeless individuals and families with the most urgent housing needs. Discussion Actions planned to mitigate impacts of Radon Salt Lake City is committed to providing safe, affordable housing opportunities that are free of contaminations that could affect the health and safety of occupants. Section 50.3(i) states that “it is HUD policy that all property proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and gasses, and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the health and saf ety of occupants of conflict with the intended utilization of the property.” To that end, the city created a Radon Mitigation Policy that address the potential of Radon in homes that are newly construct ed or rehabilitated utilizing federal funding issued t hrough this Action Plan. In June 2020, Salt Lake City will host a training seminar to review the requirements with subrecipients and ensure that they are prepared to be compliant with the updated requirements. The city has, and will continue, to provide technical assistance to each agency in an effort to ensure agencies are properly identifying sites that must be tested, how to test correctly, how to read test results, and the appropriate mitigation standards that must be followed. The Radon Mitigation P olicy includes specifics on testing and mitigation requirements. The city has also partnered with the State of Utah to implement the mitigation policy, provide technical assistance, and outreach/education materials. To leverage resources, the city will ref er clients needing financial assistance for mitigation to other community resources. To ensure that even the most vulnerable and high risk populations SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 73 | P a g e have an opportunity to mitigate Radon, the City has implemented a grant program whereby residents meetin g a set of criteria, may apply for a grant to bear the costs of mitigation. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 74 | P a g e AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS - 91.220(l)(1,2,4) Introduction Salt Lake City’s program specific requirements for CDBG, HOME, and ESG are outlined as follows. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1) 1. Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out 1 The total amount of anticipated program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and tha t has not yet been reprogrammed. $6,000,000 2 The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0 3 The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlement s. 0 4 The amount of any grant funds returne d to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan . 0 5 The amount of income from float‐funded activities. 0 Total Program Income: $6,000,000 2. Other CDBG Requirements 1 The amount of urgent need activities 0 2 The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income 90% Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefi t of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. This Annual Action Plan covers a one year period. HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2) 1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as follows Salt Lake City does not utilize HOME funding beyond those identified in Section 92.205. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 75 | P a g e 2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows In order to preserve the number of affordable housing units for continued benefit to low -income residents, Salt Lake City requires that HOME funds used to assist homeownership be recaptured whenever assiste d units become vacant prior to the end of the affordability period that is commensurate with the amount of funding invested in the activity. Trust deeds or property restrictions are filed on appropriate properties to ensure compliance with the period of af fordability. Homeownership Recapture: Salt Lake City follows the HOME recapture provisions established at §92.253(a)(5)(ii). Any remaining HOME assistance to the home buyer must be recovered if the housing does not continue to be the principal residence of the family for the duration of the period of affordability. The HOME investment that is subject to recapture is based on the direct subsidy amount which includes the HOME assistance that enabled the home buyer to buy the housing unit. In all cases, the recapture provisions are limited to the net proceeds of the sale. Salt Lake City requires all sub-recipients and CHDO’s to follow the same recapture guidelines as outlined and required in the HOME rule. The City will utilize one of the following options: A) If it was determined that HOME regulations were not adhered to for initial approval of the homeowner or during the term of affordability, the entire HOME subsidy will be recaptured. B) In the event of change of title/ownership, the City will reduce the HOME inve stment amount to be recaptured on a pro-rata basis for the time the homeowner has owned and occupied the housing measured against the applicable affordability period. C) If the net proceeds are not sufficient to recapture the appropriate HOME investment plus enable the homeowner to recover the amount of the homeowner's down payment and any capital improvement investment made by the owner since purchase, the City will share the net proceeds. Net proceeds are the sales price minus loan repayment (other than HOME funds) and closing costs. The net proceeds will be divided proportionally on a pro -rata basis for the time the homeowner has owned and occupied the housing measured against the applicable affordability period. Owner investment returned first. The City may choose to permit the home buyer to recover the home buyer's entire investment (down payment and capital improvements made by the owner since purchase) before recapturing the HOME investment. This provision is intended to ensure a fair return on investment for the homeowner if a sale occurs during the period of affordability. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 76 | P a g e HOME Funds Provided for Homebuyer Activity subject to Recapture of HOME Funds Minimum years of Affordability Under $15,000 5 Years Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 Years Over $40,000 15 Years Homeownership Resale: Resale requirements will only apply to HOME -funded affordable homeownership opportunities provided using the Community Land Trust (CLT) model. In that model, Salt Lake City provides funding to a community land trust to sell homes at an affordable price while placing a 99-year leasehold on the estate. Resale provisions will be enforced by a recorded covenant signed by the land owner, the homebuyer, and the City, and also through a 99-year ground lease between the land owner (the trust) and the homebuyer. Under both the covenant and the ground lease, the home may be sold only to an income -qualified buyer who will occupy the home as a primary residence. The land owner, through the ground lease, shall have an option to purchase in order to ensure that the home is sold to an eligible buyer at an affordable price. The Resale Requirement will limit the sales price, as described below. The provision for determining the sales prices of CLT units incorporates historical appreciation data with an annual appreciation percentage for determining future sales prices. This provision is based on an objective standard and is included in the CLT lease agreement. This provision is intended to ensure a fair return on investment for the homeowner. The provision for determining homeowner return on capital improvements is included in the CLT lease under Construction Carried Out by Homeowner Requirements and Appraised Value of Homeowner’s Ownership Interest at Resale or Formula Price. Due to the growing costs of homes in the Salt Lake City residential market, the City has opted to implement a Homeownership Value Limit of $378,100 for a single family home. Salt Lake City determined 95 percent of the median area purchase price for single family housing i n the jurisdiction in accordance with procedures established at § 92.254(a)(2)(iii). Specifically, this purchase price was calculated based on a median sales price of $398,000 (i.e. $398,000 × 0.95 = $378,100) for single family homes. This figure is for bo th new construction and existing homes. The attached sales data includes a count of 2,361 sales since May 2020 and only includes addresses within incorporated Salt Lake City boundaries. An analysis of Salt Lake City’s homebuyer market demonstrates a reaso nable range of low -income households will continue to qualify for mortgage financing assistance: US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2000-2018: o The median home values increased 89.8%, from $152,400 to $289,200 SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 77 | P a g e o The median household income increased by 52.6%, f rom $36,944 in 2000 to $56,370 HUD, HOME Income Guidelines for 2020, Salt Lake County, 80% AMI for a family of 4: $70,300 US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2014-2018: o The number of households earning $50,000 - $74,999: 13,991 households, 17.9% of total population o The average monthly owner costs with a mortgage, $1,534 UtahRealEstate.com, May 2020, number of Salt Lake City listings between $100,000 -$299,999: 554 3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units ac quired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows As stated above, Salt Lake City requires that HOME funds be recaptured whenever assisted units become vacant prior to the end of the affordability period that is commensurate with the amount of funding invested in the activity. In very rare cases, Salt Lake City will use HOME funds as an acquisition source for multifamily projects. With these rental activities, rental projects must meet the appropriate period of affordability or HOME funds provided to them will be recaptured by the City. Trust deeds or property restrictions are filed on appropriate properties to ensure compliance with the period of affordability. Rental Housing Recapture: All HOME-assisted units must meet the affordability requirements for not less than the applicable period specified below regardless of the term of any loan or mortgage, transfer of ownership, or repayment of loan funds. Rental Housing Activity Minimum years of Affordability Rehab or acquisition of existing housi ng per unit amount of HOME funds under $15,000 5 Years Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 Years Over $40,000 or rehab involving refinancing 15 Years New construction or acquisition of newly constructed housing 20 Years 4. Plans for using HOME funds to refina nce existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows Not applicable. Salt Lake City does not intend t o use HOME funds to refinance multifamily housing debt. SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 78 | P a g e Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(4) 1. Include written standards for providing ESG assistance (may include as attachment) The Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Policies include written standards for providing ESG assistance. 2. If the Continuum of Care has established centralized or coordinated assessment system that meets HUD requirements, describe that centralized or coordinated assessment system The Salt Lake Continuum of Care h as developed a collaborative, written coordinated assessment plan. Consensus exists for a coordinated assessment plan that covers the entire Continuum of Care with a multi - access entry point quick assessment method for any homeless individual or family in need of emergency shelter or service. Our 211 system, service providers, government agencies, and others publicize all existing access points, striving to do everything we can to ensure individuals and families in need have clear direction for accessing appropriate services. After entry into an emergency service, individuals are tracked as they progress toward housing and/or support interventions. All homeless families and those individuals prioritized for permanent supportive housing placements are guided toward this centralized process and placed into one of several housing programs depending on assessment. Standardized assessments include a quick assessment for emergency services and eligibility and enrollment materials for housing placements. Salt Lake City worked with partners as part of the Collective Impact process to further improve our coordinated assessment system. Representatives of the City worked with the CoC, ESG funders, and service providers to improve the coordinated assessment system to meet requirements set forth in Notice CPD-17-01. The new coordinated assessment system was approved by the Salt Lake County Homeless Coordinating Committee in January, 2018. Salt Lake City is continuing to work with the CoC, ESG funders, and service provider s to operationalize these new requirements through the Coordinated Entry Task Group. 3. Identify the process for making sub -awards and describe how the ESG allocation available to private nonprofit organizations (including community and faith -based organizations) will be allocated Granting sub-awards is an intensive, months-long process. It begins with applications being made available and education workshops held to explain different federal grant programs and eligible activities under each. Staff also reaches out to potential applicants through the Salt Lake Homeless Coordinating Council, the local Continuum of Care, the Utah Housing Coalition and others. After the application period closes, a general needs hearing is conducted to help guide how ESG monies should be spent. Applications are discussed with a citizen board in a public forum. Applicants are invited to meet with SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 79 | P a g e the citizen board to answer final questions or provide additional information regarding their programs and their role in the larger hom eless services system structure. The Community Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board (CDCIP Board) reviews the applications and makes a recommendation to the Salt Lake City Mayor based on federal guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long term homeless services strategies. The Mayor then makes a recommendation on funding to the City Council based on the CDCIP board recommendation, federal guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long -term homeless serv ices strategies. The City Council holds a public hearing for comment on the programs and proposed benefits of each. The City Council then makes a funding decision based on public comment, the Mayor’s recommendation, federal guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long term homeless services strategies. 4. If the jurisdiction is unable to meet the homeless participation requirement in 24 CFR 576.405(a), the jurisdiction must specify its plan for reaching out to and consulting with homeless o r formerly homeless individuals in considering policies and funding decisions regarding facilities and services funded under ESG Before the Salt Lake City Council makes the final funding decisions for ESG funds, there are multiple venues for public outreac h including two public hearings. Efforts are made to include participation from homeless and formerly homeless individuals. Emergency Solutions Grant funds, along with other public and private monies, are used by Salt Lake City to implement our short and l ong term homeless service goals. Individuals experiencing homelessness often help the city craft and implement short -term and long-term service plans. Below are a few examples of how the city has created the opportunity for homeless persons to participate: Homeless individuals participated in the creation of the long -term homeless services situation assessment. The City interviewed over 100 homeless individuals as part of its Homeless Services Site Evaluation Commission in 2015. Summer of 2016, the City hel d a workshop specifically with individuals experiencing homelessness to draft the criteria used to locate new homeless resource centers. February 2017, a workshop was held with homeless individuals to gain feedback on the design, location and programming at new homeless resource centers. March 2018, Salt Lake City participated in a Homeless Youth Forum, which brought together a wide range of service providers together to discuss service delivery for homeless youth. There were approximately 20 homeless and f ormerly homeless youth who were dispersed amongst SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN 80 | P a g e the discussion groups and they provided valuable feedback on various service delivery systems. Summer of 2018, the City coordinated with Salt Lake County to collect survey data on funding priorities from individuals experiencing homelessness on two separate occasions. The City continues to reach out to persons with “lived experience” to help shape the services being prioritized and funded throughout the homeless services system. ESG subgrantees and other homeless service providers routinely consult with current and formerly homeless individuals to make programming and service delivery decisions. There is representation from homeless and formerly homeless individuals on the Collective Impact Steering Committ ee and the CoC executive board. 5. Describe performance standards for evaluating ESG Salt Lake City scores programs receiving Emergency Solutions Grant funding using the performance metrics required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (H UD) and local priorities. In an effort to increase transparency, leverage resources, and maximize efficiencies, Salt Lake City does the following: All applications undergo a risk analysis prior to the awarding of funds. Standardized quarterly reporting is reviewed for compliance, timeliness, and accuracy. Monitoring and technical assistance risk analyses are performed on all subgrantees to determine which organization would benefit from monitoring or technical assistance visits. Collect information that supports the required performance measurement metrics and provides context on local initiatives. To ensure consistent performance metrics, the Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer HMIS, or Hom eless Management Information System. All service agencies in the region and the rest of the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Salt Lake City reviews HMIS data to ensure grantees are properly using funds as promised in their contracts and meeting larger City, Continuum of Care, and State goals. Sold Count:Low:High:Median Price:Average Price:Median CDOM: 2,361 132,474 2,540,000 398,000 464,051 21 Sold Price Range # Listings Median CDOM 100,000 - 149,999 6 26 150,000 - 199,999 13 16 200,000 - 249,999 130 12 250,000 - 299,999 405 18 300,000 - 349,999 349 14 350,000 - 399,999 290 16 400,000 - 449,999 272 22 450,000 - 499,999 187 25 500,000 - 549,999 157 29 550,000 - 599,999 112 15 600,000 - 649,999 81 20 650,000 - 699,999 62 30 700,000 - 749,999 67 35 750,000 - 799,999 45 34 800,000 - 849,999 28 45 850,000 - 899,999 34 41 900,000 - 949,999 21 40 950,000 - 999,999 16 55 1,000,000 - 1,049,999 10 56 1,050,000 - 1,099,999 9 51 1,100,000 - 1,149,999 6 63 1,150,000 - 1,199,999 4 16 1,200,000 - 1,249,999 9 80 1,250,000 - 1,299,999 9 32 1,300,000 - 1,349,999 6 17 1,350,000 - 1,399,999 7 126 1,400,000 - 1,449,999 4 49 1,450,000 - 1,499,999 4 83 1,500,000 - 1,549,999 1 45 Market Summary Report The following report breaks down residential properties into price ranges (in increments of 50,000). If no properties fit a range, that range is not shown. Search Criteria:State is Utah,Property Type is Single Family,County is Salt Lake,City is Salt Lake City,Number of Days Back at most 360 days back,Style is 2-Story or A-Frame or Bungalow/Cottage or Rambler/Ranch or Split-Entry/Bi-Level or Tri/Multi-Level or Tudor or Victorian,Short Sale is not Price subject to 3rd party approval or Price previously approved by 3rd Party,Offer Under 3rd Party Review is No,Construction Status is Blt./Standing,Zoning has any of Single-Family,Open House is No UtahRealEstate.com Page 1 - 05/20/2020 2:56 pm 1,600,000 - 1,649,999 4 34 1,650,000 - 1,699,999 2 265 1,750,000 - 1,799,999 1 476 1,800,000 - 1,849,999 1 743 1,850,000 - 1,899,999 1 213 1,900,000 - 1,949,999 2 237 1,950,000 - 1,999,999 1 81 2,000,000 - 2,049,999 1 28 2,400,000 - 2,449,999 1 42 2,450,000 - 2,499,999 1 153 2,500,000 - 2,549,999 2 42 UtahRealEstate.com Page 2 - 05/20/2020 2:56 pm Prepared By: Olga Crump Equity Real Estate - Premier Elite Branch 801-809-0544 This report was generated automatically by the Wasatch Front Regional MLS on 05/20/2020 at 02:56 PM UtahRealEstate.com Page 3 - 05/20/2020 2:56 pm Community Land Trust Ground Lease SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION [INSERT TENANT NAME] Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -1- SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY LAND TRUST GROUND LEASE TABLE OF CONTENTS RECITALS DEFINITIONS ARTICLE 1: Homeowner’s Letter of Agreement and Attorney’s Letter of Acknowledgment or Homeowner’s Waiver ARTICLE 2: Leasing of Rights to the Land 2.1 CLT LEASES THE LAND TO HOMEOWNER: 2.2 MINERAL RIGHTS NOT LEASED TO HOMEOWNER ARTICLE 3: Term of Lease, Change of Land Owner 3.1 TERM OF LEASE IS 99 YEARS 3.2 HOMEOWNER CAN RENEW LEASE FOR ANOTHER 99 YEARS 3.3 WHAT HAPPENS IF CLT DECIDES TO SELL THE LEASED LAND ARTICLE 4: Use of Leased Land 4.1 HOMEOWNER MAY USE TH E HOME ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED PURPOSES 4.2 HOMEOWNER MUST USE THE HOME AND LEASED LAND RESPONSIB LY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW 4.3 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR USE BY OTHERS 4.4 HOMEOWNER MUST OCCUPY THE HOME FOR AT LEAST 10 MONTHS EACH YEAR 4.5 LEASED LAND MAY NOT BE SUBLEASED WITHOUT CLT’S PERMISSION 4.6 CLT HAS A RIGHT TO INSPECT THE LEASED L AND 4.7 HOMEOWNER HAS A RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT ARTICLE 5: Lease Fee 5.1 AMOUNT OF LEASE FEE 5.2 WHEN THE LEASE FEE IS TO BE PAID 5.3 HOW THE AMOUNT OF THE LAND USE FEE HAS BEEN DETERMINED 5.4 CLT MAY REDUCE OR SUSPEND THE LEASE FEE TO IMPROVE AFFORDABILITY 5.5 FEES MAY BE INCREASED FROM TIME TO TIME 5.6 LAND USE FEE WILL BE INCREASED IF RESTRICTIONS ARE REMOVED 5.7 IF PAYMENT IS LATE, INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED 5.8 CLT CAN COLLECT UNPAID FEES WHEN HOME IS SOLD ARTICLE 6: Taxes and Assessments 6.1 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ALL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS 6.2 CLT WILL PASS ON ANY TAX BILLS IT RECEIVES TO HOMEOWNER 6.3 HOMEOWNER HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST TAXES Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -2- 6.4 IF HOMEOWNER FAILS TO PAY TAXES, CLT MAY INCREASE LEASE FEE 6.5 PARTY THAT PAYS TAXES MUST SHOW PROOF ARTICLE 7: The Home 7.1 HOMEOWNER OWNS THE HOUSE AND ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LEASED LAND 7.2 HOMEOWNER PURCHASES HOME WHEN SIGNING LEASE 7.3 CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY HOMEOWNER MUST COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS 7.4 HOMEOWNER MAY NOT ALLOW STATUTORY LIENS TO REMAIN AGAINST LEASED LAND OR HOME 7.5 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS 7.6 A REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT RESERVE FUND IS ESTABLISHED TO SU PPORT FUTURE REPAIRS 7.7 WHEN LEASE ENDS, OWNERSHIP REVERTS TO CLT, WHICH SHALL REIMBURSE HOMEOWNER ARTICLE 8: Financing 8.1 HOMEOWNER CANNOT MORTGAGE THE HOME WITHOUT CLT’s PERMISSION 8.2 BY SIGNING LEASE, CLT GIVES PERMISSION FOR ORIGINAL MORTGAGE 8.3 HOMEOWNER MUST GET SPECIFIC PERMISSION FOR REFINANCING OR OTHER SUBSEQUENT MORTGAGES. 8.4 CLT IS REQUIRED TO PERMIT A “STANDARD PERMITTED MORTGAGE” 8.5 A PERMITTED MORTGAGEE HAS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LEASE 8.6 A PERMITTED MORTGAGEE HAS CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER THE LEASE 8.7 IN THE EVENT OF FORECLOSURE, ANY PROCEEDS IN EXCESS OF THE PURCHASE OPTION PRICE WILL GO TO CLT ARTICLE 9: Liability, Insurance, Damage and Destruction, Eminent Domain 9.1 HOMEOWNER ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY 9.2 HOMEOWNER MUST DEFEND CLT AGAINST ALL CLAIMS OF LIABILITY 9.3 HOMEOWNER MUST REIMBURSE CLT 9.4 HOMEOWNER MUST INSURE THE HOME AGAINST LOSS AND MUST MAINTAIN LIABILITY INSURANCE ON HOME AND LEASED LAND 9.5 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOME IS DAMAGED OR DESTROYED 9.6 WHAT HAPPENS IF SOME OR ALL OF THE LAND IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE 9.7 IF PART OF THE LAND IS TAKEN, THE LEASE FEE MAY BE REDUCED 9.8 IF LEASE IS TERMINATED BY DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION OR TAKING, CLT WILL TRY TO HELP HOMEOWNER BUY ANOTHER CLT HOME ARTICLE 10: Transfer of the Home 10.1 INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO PRESERVE AFFORDABILITY Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -3- 10.2 HOMEOWNER MAY TRANSFER HOME ONLY TO CLT OR QUALIFIED PERSONS 10.3 THE HOME MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO CERTAIN HEIRS OF HOMEOWNER 10.4 HOMEOWNER’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SELL 10.5 CLT HAS AN OPTION TO PURCHASE THE HOME 10.6 IF PURCHASE OPTION EXPIRES, HOMEOWNER MAY SELL ON CERTAIN TERMS 10.7 AFTER ONE-YEAR CLT SHALL HAVE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO CONDUCT SALE 10.8 PURCHASE OPTION PRICE EQUALS LESSER OF APPRAISED VALUE OF HOMEOWNER’S OWNERSHIP INTEREST OR FORMULA PRICE 10.9 HOW THE VALUE OF HOMEOWNER’S OWNERSHIP INTEREST IS DETERMINED 10.10 HOW THE FORMULA PRICE IS CALCULATED 10.11 QUALIFIED PURCHASER SHALL RECEIVE NEW LEASE 10.12 HOMEOWNER AND PURCHASER PAY LEASE TERMINATION FEE 10.13 HOMEOWNER REQUIRED TO MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS AT TRANSFER ARTICLE 11: Reserved ARTICLE 12: Default 12.1 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER FAILS TO MAKE REQUIRED PAYMENTS TO THE CLT 12.2 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER VIOLATES OTHER (NONMONETARY) TERMS OF THE LEASE 12.3 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER DEFAULTS AS A RESULT OF JUDICIAL PROCESS 12.4 A DEFAULT (UNCURED VIOLATION) GIVES CLT THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE OR EXERCISE ITS PURCHASE OPTION ARTICLE 13: Mediation and Arbitration 13.1 MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION ARE PERMITTED 13.2 HOMEOWNER AND CLT SHALL SHARE CO ST OF ANY MEDIATION OR ARBITRATION ARTICLE 14: General Provisions 14.1 HOMEOWNER’S MEMBERSHIP IN CLT 14.2 NOTICES 14.3 NO BROKERAGE 14.4 SEVERABILITY AND DURATION OF LEASE 14.5 RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IN LIEU OF OPTION 14.6 WAIVER 14.7 CLT’S RIGHT TO PROSECUTE OR DEFEND 14.8 CONSTRUCTION 14.9 HEADINGS AND TABLE OF CONTENTS Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -4- 14.10 PARTIES BOUND 14.11 GOVERNING LAW 14.12 RECORDING Exhibits That Must Be Attached Exhibit LETTER OF AGREEMENT Exhibit ATTORNEY’S LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR HOMEOWNER’S WAIVER Exhibit LEASED LAND Exhibit DEED Exhibit PERMITTED MORTGAGES Exhibit FIRST REFUSAL Other Exhibits to be attached as Appropriate Exhibit ZONING Exhibit RESTRICTIONS Exhibit INITIAL APPRAISAL APPENDIX: Alternative versions of Article 10 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY LAND TRUST GROUND LEASE THIS SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY LAND TRUST GROUND LEASE (this “Lease” or the “Lease”) entered into as of the “Effective Date” (as defined herein), between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, in connection with its COMMUNITY LAND TRUST program (“CLT”) and __________________________ (“Homeowner”). RECITALS A. Salt Lake City Corporation has created a Salt Lake City Community Land Trust program (CLT) for the purpose of providing homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income people who would otherwise be unable to afford homeownership. B. A goal of the CLT is to preserve affordable homeownership opportunities through the long-term leasing of land under owner -occupied homes. C. The Leased Land described in this Lease has been acquired and is being leased by the CLT in furtherance of this goal. D. The Homeowner shares the purposes of the CLT and has agreed to enter into this Le ase not only to obtain the benefits of homeownership, but also to further the charitable purposes of the CLT. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -5- E. Homeowner and CLT recognize the special nature of the terms of this Lease, and each of them accepts these terms, including those terms that affect the marketing and resale price of the property now being purchased by the Homeowner. F. Homeowner and CLT agree that the terms of this Lease further their shared goals over an extended period of time and through a succession of owners. NOW THEREFORE, Homeowner and CLT agree on all of the terms and conditions of this Lease as set forth below. DEFINITIONS: Homeowner and CLT agree on the following definitions of key terms used in this Lease. Effective Date: the date on which both parties have executed this Lease and it has been recorded with the Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office. Leased Land : the parcel of land, described in Exhibit: LEASED LAND that is leased to the Homeowner. Home: the residential structure and other permanent improvements located on the Leased Land and owned by the Homeowner, including both the original Home described in Exhibit: DEED, and a ll permanent improvements added thereafter by Homeowner at Homeowner’s expense. Base Price: the total price that is paid for the Home by the Homeowner (including the amount provided by a first mortgage loan but not including subsidy in the form of deferred loans to the Homeowner). Purchase Option Price: the maximum price the Homeowner is allowed to receive for the sale of the Home and the Homeowner’s right to possess, occupy and use the Leased Land, as defined in Article 10 of this Lease. Lease Fee: The monthly fee that the Homeowner pays to the CLT for the continuing use of the Leased Land and any additional amounts that the CLT charges to the Homeowner for reasons permitted by this Lease. Permitted Mortgage : A mortgage or deed of trust on the Home and the Homeowner’s right to possess, occupy and use the Leased Land granted to a lender by the Homeowner with the CLT’s Permission. The Homeowner may not mortgage the CLT’s interest in the Leased Land, and may not grant any mortgage or deed of trust without CLT ’s Permission. Event of Default: Any violation of the terms of the Lease unless it has been corrected (“cured”) by Homeowner or the holder of a Permitted Mortgage in the specified period of time after a written Notice of Default has been given by CLT. ARTICLE 1: Homeowner’s Letter of Agreement and Attorney’s Letter of Acknowledgment or Homeowner’s Waiver Attached as Exhibit HOMEOWNER’S LETTER OF AGREEMENT and Exhibit ATTORNEY’S LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR HOMEOWNER’S WAIVER and made part of this Lease by reference is a Letter of Agreement from the Homeowner, describing the Homeowner’s understanding and acceptance of this Lease (including the parts of the Lease that affect the resale of the Home). Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -6- Homeowner understands and ac knowledges that Homeowner has had the opportunity to have an attorney review this Lease , the Homeowner’s Letter of Agreement, the Deed, and any other materials provided by the CLT, and advise Homeowner regarding Homeowner’s rights and obligations under the se documents, and the present and foreseeable risks and legal consequences of the transaction. Homeowner further acknowledges that Homeowner is entering into this transaction in reliance on Homeowner’s own judgment and upon Homeowner’s investigation of the facts. If Homeowner elects to consult with an attorney, the attorney shall provide a n Attorney’s Letter of Acknowledgement to be attached as an Exhibit to this Lease. Alternatively, if Homeowner does not consult with an attorney, Homeowner will provide a Homeowner’s Waiver to be attached as an Exhibit to this Lease. ARTICLE 2: Leasing of Rights to the Land 2.1 CLT LEASES THE LAND TO HOMEOWNER: The CLT hereby leases to the Homeowner, and Homeowner hereby accepts, the right to possess, occupy and use the Leased Land (described in the attached Exhibit LEASED LAND) in accordance with the terms of this Lease. CLT has furnished to Homeowner a copy of the most current title report, if any, obtained by CLT for the Leased Land, and Homeowner accepts title to the Leased Land in its condition “as is” as of the signing of this Lease. 2.2 MINERAL RIGHTS NOT LEASED TO HOMEOWNER: CLT does not lease to Homeowner the right to remove from the Leased Land any minerals lying beneath the Leased Land’s surface. Ownership of such minerals remains with the CLT, but the CLT shall not remove any such minerals from the Leased Land without the Homeowner’s written permission. ARTICLE 3: Term of Lease, Change of Land Owner 3.1 TERM OF LEASE IS 99 YEARS: This Lease shall remain in effect for 99 years, beginning on the Effective Date , and ending on the ________ day of ______________, 20____, unless ended sooner or renewed as provided below. 3.2 HOMEOWNER CAN RENEW LEASE FOR ANOTHER 99 YEARS: Homeowner may renew this Lease for one a dditional period of 99 years. The CLT may change the terms of the Lease for the renewal period prior to the beginning of the renewal period but only if these changes do not materially and adversely interfere with the rights possessed by Homeowner under the Lease. Not more than 365 nor less than 180 days before the last day of the first 99 - year period, CLT shall give Homeowner a written notice that states the date of the expiration of the first 99-year period and the conditions for renewal as set forth in the following paragraph (“the Expiration Notice”). The Expiration Notice shall also describe any changes that CLT intends to make in the Lease for the renewal period as permitted above. The Homeowner shall then have the right to renew the Lease only if the following conditions are met: (a) within 60 days of receipt of the Expiration Notice, the Homeowner shall give CLT written notice stating the Homeowner ’s desire to renew (“the Renewal Notice”); (b) this Lease shall be in effect on the last day of the original 99-year term, and (c) the Homeowner shall not be in default under this Lease or under any Permitted Mortgage on the last day of the original 99-year term. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -7- When Homeowner has exercised the option to renew, Homeowner and CLT shall sign a memorandum stating that the option has been exercised. The memorandum shall comply with the requirements for a notice of lease as stated in Section 14.12 below. The CLT shall record this memorandum in accordance with the requirements of law promptly after the begin ning of the renewal period. 3.3 WHAT HAPPENS IF CLT DECIDES TO SELL THE LEASED LAND: If ownership of the Leased Land is ever transferred by CLT (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) to any other person or institution, this Lease shall not cease, but shall remain binding on the new land- owner as well as the Homeowner. If CLT agrees to transfer the Leased Land to any person or institution other than a non-profit corporation, charitable trust, government agency or other similar institution sharing the goals described in the Recitals above, the Homeowner shall have a right of first refusal to purchase the Leased Land. The details of this right shall be as stated in the attached Exhibit FIRST REFUSAL. Any sale or other transfer contrary to this Section 3.3 shall be null and void. ARTICLE 4: Use of Leased Land 4.1 HOMEOWNER MAY USE THE HOME ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED PURPOSES: Homeowner shall use, and allow others to use, the Home and Leased Land only for residential purposes and any activities related to residential use that are permitted by local zoning law. 4.2 HOMEOWNER MUST USE THE HOME AND LEASED LAND RESPONSIBILY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW: Homeowner shall use the Home and Leased Land in a way that will not cause harm to others or create any public nuisance. Homeowner shall dispose of all waste in a safe and sanitary manner. Homeowner shall maintain all parts of the Home and Leased Land in safe, sound and habitable condition, in full compliance with all laws and regulations, and in the condition that is required to maintain the insurance coverage required by Section 9.4 of this Lease. 4.3 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR USE BY OTHERS: Homeowner shall be responsible for the use of the Home and Leased Land by all residents and visitors and anyo ne else using the Leased Land with Homeowner’s permission and shall make all such people aware of the restrictions on use set forth in this Lease. 4.4 HOMEOWNER MUST OCCUPY THE HOME FOR AT LEAST TEN (10) MONTHS EACH YEAR: Homeowner shall occupy the Home f or at least 10 months of each year of this Lease, unless otherwise agreed by CLT. Occupancy by Homeowner’s child, spouse , domestic partner or other persons approved by CLT shall be considered occupancy by Homeowner. Neither compliance with the occupancy requirement nor CLT’s permission for an extended period of non-occupancy constitutes permission to sublease the Leased Land and Home, which is addressed in Section 4.5 below. 4.5 LEASED LAND MAY NOT BE SUBLEASED WITHOUT CLT’S PERMISSION. Except as otherwise provided in Article 8 and Article 10, Homeowner shall not sublease, sell or otherwise convey any of Homeowner’s rights under this Lease, for any period of time, without the written permission of CLT. Homeowner agrees that CLT shall have the right to withhold such consent in order to further the purposes of this Lease. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -8- If permission for subleasing is granted, the sublease shall be subjec t to the following conditions. a) Any sublease shall be subject to all of the terms of this Lease. b) The rental or occupancy fee charged the sub-lessee shall not be more than the amount of the Lease Fee charged the Homeowner by the CLT, plus an amount approved by CLT to cover Homeowner’s costs in owning the Home, including but not limited to the cost of the homeowner’s mortgage payment including principal, interest taxes, insurance and homeowner or condominium association dues, if applicable. 4.6 CLT HAS A RIGHT TO INSPECT THE LEASED LAND: The CLT may inspect any part of the Leased Land at any reasonable time, after notifying the Homeowner at least 24 hours before the planned inspection. No more than one regular inspection may be carried out in a single year, except in the case of an emergency. In an emergency, the CLT may inspect any part of the Lease d Land and Home , after making reasonable efforts to inform the Homeowner before the inspection. Should deficiencies be identified during the course of an inspection, the CLT reserves the right to re -inspect the property to ensure they were remedied. In addition, if the CLT has received an Intent-To-Sell Notice (as described in Section 10.4 below), then the CLT has the right to inspect the interiors of all fully enclosed buildings to determine their condition prior to the sale. The CLT must notify the Homeowner at least 24 hours before carrying out such inspection. 4.7 HOMEOWNER HAS A RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT: Homeowner has the right to quiet enjoyment of the Leased Land. The CLT has no desire or intention to interfere with the personal lives, associations, expressions, or actions of the Homeowner in any way not permitted by this Lease. ARTICLE 5: Lease Fee 5.1 AMOUNT OF LEASE FEE: The Homeowner shall pay a monthly Lease Fee in an amount equal to the sum of (a) a Land Use Fee of $50 to be paid in re turn for the continuing right to possess, occupy and use the Leased Land, plus (b) a Repair and Replacement Reserve Fee of $35 to be held by the CLT and used for the purpose of preserving the physical quality of the Home for the long term in accordance with Section 7.6 below. 5.2 WHEN THE LEASE FEE IS TO BE PAID: The Lease Fee shall be payable to CLT on the first day of each month for as long as this Lease remains in effect, unless the Lease Fee is to be escrowed and paid by a Permitted Mortgagee, in which case payment shall be made as directed by that Mortgagee. 5.3 HOW THE AMOUNT OF THE LAND USE FEE HAS BEEN DETERMINED: The amount of the Land Use Fee stated in Section 5.1 above has been determined as follows. First, the approximate monthly fair rental value of the Leased Land has been established, as of the beginning of the Lease term, recognizing that the fair rental value is reduced by certain restrictions imposed by the Lease on the use of the Land. Then the affordability of this monthly amount, plus the amount of the Repair Reserve Fee, for the Homeowner has been analyzed and, if necessary, the Land Use has been reduced to an amount considered to be affordable for Homeowner. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -9- 5.4 CLT MAY REDUCE OR SUSPEND THE LEASE FEE TO IMPROVE AFFORDABILITY: CLT may reduce or suspend the total amount of the Lease Fee for a period of time for the purpose of improving the affordability of the Homeowner’s monthly housing costs. Any such reduction or suspension must be in writing and signed by CLT. 5.5 FEES MAY BE INCREASED FROM TIME TO TIME: The CLT may increase the amount of the Land Use Fee and/or the Repair Reserve Fee from time to time, but not more often than once every 2 years. Each time such amounts are increased, the total percentage of in crease since the date this Lease was signed shall not be greater than the percentage of increase, over the same period of time, in the Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers for the urban area in which the Leased Land is located . 5.6 LAND USE FEE WILL BE INCREASED IF RESTRICTIONS ARE REMOVED: If, for any reason, the provisions of Article 10 regarding transfers of the Home or Sections 4.4 and 4.5 regarding occupancy and subleasing are suspended or invalidated for any period of time , then during that time the Land Use Fee shall be increased to an amount calculated by CLT to equal the fair rental value of the Leased Land for use not restricted by the suspended provisions, but initially an amount not exceeding ____ dollars. Such incre ase shall become effective upon CLT’s written notice to Homeowner. Thereafter, for so long as these restrictions are not reinstated in the Lease, the CLT may, from time to time, further increase the amount of such Land Use Fee, provided that the amount of the Land Use Fee does not exceed the fair rental value of the property, and provided that such increases do not occur more often than once in every 2 years. 5.7 IF PAYMENT IS LATE, INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED: If the CLT has not received any monthly installment of the Lease Fee on or before the date on which the such installment first becomes payable under this Lease (the “Due Date”), the CLT may require Homeowner to pay interest on the unpaid amount from the Due Date through and including the date such payment or installment is received by CLT, at a rate not to exceed 4%. Such interest shall be deemed additional Lease Fee and shall be paid by Homeowner to CLT upon demand; provided, however, that CLT shall waive any such interest that would otherwise be payable to CLT if such payment of the Lease Fee is received by CLT on or before the thirtieth (30 th) day after the Due Date. 5.8 CLT CAN COLLECT UNPAID FEES WHEN HOME IS SOLD: In the event that any amount of payable Lease Fee remains unpaid when the Home is sold, the outstanding amount of payable Lease Fee, including any interest as provided above, shall be paid to CLT out of any proceeds from the sale that would otherwise be due to Homeowner. The CLT shall have, and the Homeowner hereby consents to, a lien upon the Home for any unpaid Lease Fee. Such lien shall be prior to all other liens and encumbrances on the Home except (a) liens and encumbrances recorded before the recording of this Lease, (b) Permitted Mortgages as defined in section 8.1 below; and (c) liens for real property taxes and other governmental assessments or charges against the Home. ARTICLE 6: Taxes and Assessments 6.1 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FO R PAYING ALL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS: Homeowner shall pay directly; when due, all taxes and governmental Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -10- assessments that relate to the Home and the Leased Land (including any taxes relating to the CLT’s interest in the Leased Land). 6.2 CLT WILL PASS ON AN Y TAX BILLS IT RECEIVES TO HOMEOWNER: In the event that the local taxing authority bills CLT for any portion of the taxes on the Home or Leased Land, CLT shall pass the bill to Homeowner and Homeowner shall promptly pay this bill. 6.3 HOMEOWNER HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST TAXES: Homeowner shall have the right to contest the amount or validity of any taxes relating to the Home and Leased Land. Upon receiving a reasonable request from Homeowner for assistance in this matter, CLT shall join in contesting such ta xes. All costs of such proceedings shall be paid by Homeowner. 6.4 IF HOMEOWNER FAILS TO PAY TAXES, CLT MAY INCREASE LEASE FEE: In the event that Homeowner fails to pay the taxes or other charges described in Section 6.1 above, CLT may increase Homeowner’s Lease Fee to offset the amount of taxes and other charges owed by Homeowner. Upon collecting any such amount, CLT shall pay the amount collected to the taxing authority in a timely manner. 6.5 PARTY THAT PAYS TAXES MUST SHOW PROOF: When either party pays taxes relating to the Home or Leased Land, that party shall furnish satisfactory evidence of the payment to the other party. A photocopy of a receipt shall be the usual method of furnishing such evidence. ARTICLE 7: The Home 7.1 HOMEOWNER OWNS THE HOUSE AND ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LEASED LAND: All structures, including the house, fixtures, and other improvements purchased, constructed, or installed by the Homeowner on any part of the Leased Land at any time during the term of this Lease (collectively, the “Home”) shall be property of the Homeowner. Title to the Home shall be and remain vested in the Homeowner. However, Homeowner’s rights of ownership are limited by certain provisions of this Lease, including provisions regarding the sale or leasing of the Home by the Homeowner and the CLT’s option to purchase the Home. In addition, Homeowner shall not remove any part of the Home from the Leased Land without CLT’s prior written consent. 7.2 HOMEOWNER PURCHASES HOME WHEN SIGNING LEASE: Upon the signing of this Lease, Homeowner is simultaneously purchasing the Home located at that time on the Leased Land, as described in the Deed, a copy of which is attached to this Lease as Exhibit: DEED. 7.3 CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY HOMEOWNER MUST COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS: Any construction in connection with the Home is permitted only if the following requirements are met: (a) all costs shall be paid for by the Homeowner; (b) all construction shall be performed in a professional manner and shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations; (c) all changes in the Home shall be consistent with the permitted uses described in Article 4; (d) the footprint, square -footage, or height of the house Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -11- shall not be increased and new structures shall not be built or installed on the Leased Land without the prior written consent of CLT. For any construction requiring CLT’s prior written consent, Homeowner shall submit a written request to the CLT. Such request shall include: a) a written statement of the reas ons for undertaking the construction; b) a set of drawings (floor plan and elevations) showing the dimensions of the proposed construction; c) a list of the necessary materials, with quantities needed; d) a statement of who will do the work; e) before construction can begin, Homeowner shall provide CLT with copies of all necessary building permits, if not previously provided. If the CLT finds it needs additional information it shall request such information from Homeowner within two weeks of receipt of Homeowner’s request. The CLT then, within two weeks of receiving all necessary information (including any additional information it may have requested) shall give Homeowner either its written consent or a written statement of its reasons for not consenting. Before construction can begin, Homeowner shall provide CLT with copies of all necessary building permits, if not previously provided. 7.4 HOMEOWNER MAY NOT ALLOW STATUTORY LIENS TO REMAIN AGAINST LEASED LAND OR HOME: No lien of any type shall attac h to the CLT’s title to the Leased Land. Homeowner shall not permit any statutory or similar lien to be filed against the Leased Land or the Home which remains more than 60 days after it has been filed. Homeowner shall take action to discharge such lien, whether by means of payment, deposit, bond, court order, or other means permitted by law. If Homeowner fails to discharge such lien within the 60 -day period, then Homeowner shall immediately notify CLT of such failure. CLT shall have the right to discharge the lien by paying the amount in question. Homeowner may, at Homeowner’s expense, contest the validity of any such asserted lien, provided Homeowner has furnished a bond or other acceptable surety in an amount sufficient to release the Leased Land from such lien. Any amounts paid by CLT to discharge such liens shall be treated as an additional Lease Fee payable by Homeowner upon demand. 7.5 HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS: Homeowner hereby assumes responsibility for furnishing all services or facilities on the Leased Land, including but not limited to heat, electricity, air conditioning and water. CLT shall not be required to furnish any services or facilities or to make any repairs to the Home. Homeowner shall maintain the Home and Leased Land as required by Section 4.2 above and shall see that all necessary repairs and replacements are accomplished when needed. 7.6 A REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT RESERVE FUND IS ESTABLISHED TO SUPPORT FUTURE REPAIRS: In order to encourage homeowner succe ss as well as protect the CLT’s asset, a repair reserve will be established to help finance the repair and replacement of critical components of the Home such as the roof, siding, windows, HVAC and hot water heater. The repair and replacement reserve fee will be included in the homeowner’s monthly mortgage payment in the amount of $35 per month. Given the nominal amount of the monthly Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -12- reserve, it is not anticipated that there will be adequate funds in the reserve to pay for the full replacement of any of the eligible components, and the Homeowner remains solely responsible for the full cost of such repairs and replacements. The CLT will maintain the repair and replacement reserve, and the funds are accessible by the H omeowner only for CLT approved repairs and replacements . When the Homeowner sells the property, the balance of the repair reserve will remain with the CLT and can be used by future homeowners . 7.7 WHEN LEASE ENDS, OWNERSHIP REVERTS TO CLT, WHICH SHALL REIMBURSE HOMEOWNER: Upon the expiration or termination of this Lease, ownership of the Home shall revert to CLT. Upon thus assuming title to the Home, CLT shall promptly pay an amount equal to the Purchase Option Price to the Homeowner and Permitted Mortgagee(s), as follows: FIRST, CLT shall pay any Permitted Mortgagee(s) the full amount owed to such mortgagee(s) by Homeowner in so far as the amount does not exceed the Purchase Option Price. In no event shall the total amount that the CLT is required to pay Permitted Mortgages be greater than the Purchase Option Price ; SECOND, CLT shall pay the Homeowner the balance of the Purchase Option Price calculated in accordance with Article 10 below, as of the time of reversion of ownership, less the total amount of any unpaid Lease Fee and any other amounts owed to the CLT under the terms of this Lease. The Homeowner shall be responsible for any costs necessary to clear any additional liens or other charges related to the Home which may be assessed against the Home. If the Homeowner fails to c lear such liens or charges, the balance due the Homeowner shall also be reduced by the amount necessary to release such liens or charges, including reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the CLT. ARTICLE 8: Financing 8.1 HOMEOWNER CANNOT MORTGAGE THE HOME WITHOUT CLT’s PERMISSION: The Homeowner may mortgage the Home only with the written permission of CLT. Any mortgage or deed of trust permitted in writing by the CLT is defined as a Permitted Mortgage, and the holder of such a mortgage or deed of trust is defined as a Permitted Mortgagee. 8.2 BY SIGNING LEASE, CLT GIVES PERMISSION FOR ORIGINAL MORTGAGE. By signing this Lease, CLT gives written permission for any mortgage or deed of trust signed by the Homeowner effective on the day this Lease is signe d for the purpose of financing Homeowner’s purchase of the Home. 8.3 HOMEOWNER MUST GET SPECIFIC PERMISSION FOR REFINANCING OR OTHER SUBSEQUENT MORTGAGES. If, at any time subsequent to the purchase of the Home and signing of the Lease, the Homeowner seeks a loan that is to be secured by a mortgage on the Home (to refinance an existing Permitted Mortgage or to finance home repairs or for any other purpose), Homeowner must inform CLT, in writing, of the proposed terms and conditions of such mortgage loan at least 15 business days prior to the expected closing of the loan. The information to be provided to the CLT must include: a. the name of the proposed lender ; b. Homeowner’s reason for requesting the loan; Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -13- c. the principal amount of the proposed loan and the total mortgage debt that will result from the combination of the loan and existing mortgage debt, if any; d. expected closing costs; e. the rate of interest; f. the repayment schedule; g. a copy of the appraisal commissioned in connection with the loan request. CLT may also require Homeowner to submit additional information. CLT will not permit such a mortgage loan if the loan increases Homeowner’s total mortgage debt to an amount greater than 80% of the then current Purchase Option Price, calculated in accordance with Article 10 below, or if the terms of the transaction otherwise threaten the interests of either the Homeowner or the CLT. 8.4 CLT IS REQUIRED TO PERMIT A “STANDARD PERMITTED MORTGAGE.” The CLT shall be required to permit any mortgage for which the mortgagee has signed a “Standard Permitted Mortgage Agreement” as set forth in “Exhibit: Permitted Mortgages, Part C,” and for which the loan secured thereby does not increase Homeowner’s total mortgage debt to an amount greater than the lesser of (a)105% of the then current Purchase Option Price, calculated in accordance with Article 10 below , or (b) the total of the acquisition cost, plus closing costs from the CLT, plus the first year hazard insurance premium, plus prepaid amounts for the escrow account, plus the cost of the appraisal, less the required homeowner contribution. 8.5 A PERMITTED MORTGAGEE HAS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LEASE. Any Permitted Mortgagee shall be bound by each of the requirements stated in “Exhibit: Permitted Mortgages, Part A, Obligations of Permitted Mortgagee,” which is made a part of this Lease by reference, unless the particular requirement is removed, contradicted or modified by a Rider to this Lease signed by the Homeowner and the CLT to modify the terms of the Lease during the term of the Permitted Mortgage. 8.6 A PERMITTED MORTGAGEE HAS CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER THE LEASE. Any Permitted Mortgagee shall have all of the rights and protections stated in “Exhibit: Permitted Mortgages, Part B, Rights of Permitted Mortgagee,” which is made a part of this Lease by reference. 8.7 IN THE EVENT OF FORECLOSURE, ANY PROCEEDS IN EXCESS OF THE PURCHASE OPTION PRICE WILL GO TO CLT. Homeowner and CLT recognize that it would be contrary to the purposes of this agreement if Homeowner could receive more than the Purchase Option Price as the result of the foreclosure of a mortgage. Therefore, Homeowner hereby irrevocably assigns to CLT all net proceeds of sale of the Home that would otherwise have been payable to Homeowner and that exceed the amount of net proceeds that Homeowner would have received if the property had been sold for the Purchase Option Price, calculated as described in Section 10.10 below. Homeowner aut horizes and instructs the Permitted Mortgagee, or any party conducting any sale, to pay such excess amount directly to CLT. If, for any reason, such excess amount is paid to Homeowner, Homeowner hereby agrees to promptly pay such amount to CLT. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -14- ARTICLE 9: Liability, Insurance, Damage and Destruction, Eminent Domain 9.1 HOMEOWNER ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY. Homeowner assumes all responsibility and liability related to Homeowner’s possession, occupancy and use of the Leased Land. 9.2 HOMEOWNER MUST DEFEND CLT AGAINST ALL CLAIMS OF LIABILITY. Homeowner shall defend, indemnify and hold CLT harmless against all liability and claims of liability for injury or damage to person or property from any cause on or about the Leased Land. Homeowner waives all claims against CLT for injury or damage on or about the Leased Land. However, CLT shall remain liable for injury or damage due to the grossly negligent or intentional acts or omissions of CLT or CLT’s agents or employees. 9.3 HOMEOWNER MUST REIMBURSE CLT. In the event the CLT shall be required to pay any sum that is the Homeowner’s responsibility or liability, the Homeowner shall reimburse the CLT for such payment and for reasonable expenses caused thereby. 9.4 HOMEOWNER MUST INSURE THE HOME AGAINST LOSS AND MUST MAINTAIN LIABILITY INSURANCE ON HOME AND LEASED LAND. Homeowner shall, at Homeowner’s expense, keep the Home continuously insured against “all risks” of physical loss, using Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form HO 00 03, or its equivalent, for the full replac ement value of the Home, and in any event in an amount that will not incur a coinsurance penalty. The amount of such insured replacement value must be approved by the CLT prior to the commencement of the Lease. Thereafter, if the CLT determines that the replacement value to be insured should be increased, the CLT shall inform the Homeowner of such required increase at least 30 days prior to the next date on which the insurance policy is to be renewed, and the Homeowner shall assure that the renewal inclu des such change. If Homeowner wishes to decrease the amount of replacement value to be insured, Homeowner shall inform the CLT of the proposed change at least 30 days prior to the time such change would take effect. The change shall not take effect without CLT’s approval. Should the Home lie in a flood hazard zone as defined by the National Flood Insurance Plan, the Homeowner shall keep in full force and effect flood insurance in the maximum amount available. The Homeowner shall also, at its sole expense, maintain in full force and effect public liability insurance using ISO Form HO 00 03 or its equivalent in the amount of $500,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate. The CLT shall be named as Salt Lake City Corporation as an additional insured using ISO Form HO 04 41 or its equivalent, and certificates of insurance shall be delivered to the CLT prior to the commencement of the Lease and at each anniversary date thereof. The dollar amounts of such coverage may be increased from time to time at the CLT’s request but not more often than once in any one -year period. CLT shall inform the Homeowner of such required increase in coverage at least 30 days prior to the next date on which the insurance policy is to be renewed, and the Homeowner shall assure that the renewal includes such change . The amount of such increase in coverage shall be based on current trends in homeowner’s liability insurance coverage in the area in which the Home is located. 9.5 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOME IS D AMAGED OR DESTROYED. Except as provided below, in the event of fire or other damage to the Home, Homeowner shall take all steps necessary to assure the repair of such damage and the restoration of the Home to its condition Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -15- immediately prior to the damage. All such repairs and restoration shall be completed as promptly as possible. Homeowner shall also promptly take all steps necessary to assure that the Leased Land is safe and that the damaged Home does not constitute a danger to persons or property. If Homeowner, based on professional estimates, determines either (a) that full repair and restoration is physically impossible, or (b) that the available insurance proceeds will pay for less than the full cost of necessary repairs and that Homeowner cannot ot herwise afford to cover the balance of the cost of repairs, then Homeowner shall notify CLT of this problem, and CLT may then help to resolve the problem. Methods used to resolve the problem may include efforts to increase the available insurance proceeds , efforts to reduce the cost of necessary repairs, efforts to arrange affordable financing covering the costs of repair not covered by insurance proceeds, and any other methods agreed upon by both Homeowner and CLT. If Homeowner and CLT cannot agree on a w ay of restoring the Home in the absence of adequate insurance proceeds, then Homeowner may give CLT written notice of intent to terminate the Lease. The date of actual termination shall be no less than 60 days after the date of Homeowner’s notice of intent to terminate. Upon termination, any insurance proceeds payable to Homeowner for damage to the Home shall be paid as follows. FIRST, to the expenses of their collection; SECOND, to any Permitted Mortgagee(s), to the extent required by the Permitted Mortgage(s); THIRD, to the expenses of enclosing or razing the remains of the Home and clearing debris; FOURTH, to the CLT for any amounts owed under this Lease; FIFTH, to the Homeowner, up to an amount equal to the Purchase Option Price, as of the day prior to the loss, less any amounts paid with respect to the second, third, and fourth clauses above; SIXTH, the balance, if any, to the CLT. 9.6 WHAT HAPPENS IF SOME OR ALL OF THE LAND IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE. If all of the Leased Land is taken by eminent domain or otherwise for public purposes, or if so much of the Leased Land is taken that the Home is lost or damaged beyond repair, the Lease shall terminate as of the date when Homeowner is required to give up possession of the Leased Land. Upon such termination, the entire amount of any award(s) paid shall be allocated in the way described in Section 9.5 above for insurance proceeds. In the event of a taking of a portion of the Leased Land that does not re sult in damage to the Home or significant reduction in the usefulness or desirability of the Leased Land for residential purposes, then any monetary compensation for such taking shall be allocated entirely to CLT. In the event of a taking of a portion of the Leased Land that results in damage to the Home only to such an extent that the Home can reasonably be restored to a residential use consistent with this Lease, then the damage shall be treated as damage is treated in Section 9.5 above, and monetary compensation shall be allocated as insurance proceeds are to be allocated under Section 9.5. 9.7 IF PART OF THE LAND IS TAKEN, THE LEASE FEE MAY BE REDUCED. In the event of any taking that reduces the size of the Leased Land but does not result in the Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -16- termination of the Lease, CLT shall reassess the fair rental value of the remaining Land and shall adjust the Lease Fee if necessary to assure that the monthly fee does not exceed the monthly fair rental value of the Land for use as restricted by the Lease. 9.8 IF LEASE IS TERMINATED BY DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION OR TAKING, CLT MAY TRY TO HELP HOMEOWNER BUY ANOTHER CLT HOME. If this Lease is terminated as a result of damage, destruction or taking, except if arising from or in connection with an act or omission by Homeowner or Homeowner’s invitee, CLT shall take reasonable steps to allow Homeowner to purchase another home on another parcel of leased land owned by CLT if such home can reasonably be made available. If Homeowner purchases such a home, Homeowner agrees to apply any proceeds or award received by Homeowner to the purchase of the home. Homeowner understands that there are numerous reasons why it may not be possible to make such a home available, and shall have no claim against CLT if such a home is not made available. ARTICLE 10: Transfer of the Home 10.1 INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO PRESERVE AFFORDABILITY: Homeowner and CLT agree that the provisions of this Article 10 are intended to preserve the affordability of the Home for lower income households and expand access to homeownership opportunities for such households. 10.2 HOMEOWNER MAY TRANSFER HOME ONLY TO CLT OR QUALIFIED PERSONS: Homeowner may transfer the Home only to the CLT or an Income -Qualified Person as defined below or otherwise only as explicitly permitted by the provisions of this Article 10. All such transfers are to be completed only in strict compliance with this Article 10. Any purported transfer that does not follow the procedures set forth below, except in the case of a transfer to a Permitted Mortgagee in lieu of foreclosure, shall be null and void. “Income -Qualified Person” shall mean a person or group of persons whose household income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the median household income for the applicable Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area or County as calculated and adjusted for household size from time to time by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or any successor. 10.3 THE HOME MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO CERTAIN HEIRS OF HOMEOWNER: If Homeowner dies (or if the last surviving co-owner of the Home dies), the executor or personal representative of Homeowner’s estate shall notify CLT within ninety (90) days of the date of the death. Upon receiving such notice CLT shall consent to a transfer of the Home and Homeowner’s rights to the Leased Land to one or more of the possible heirs of Homeowner listed below as “a,” “b,” or “c,” provided that a Letter of Agreement and a Letter of Attorney’s Acknowledgment (as described in A rticle 1 above) are submitted to CLT to be attached to the Lease when it is transferred to the heirs. a) the spouse of the Homeowner; or b) the child or children of the Homeowner; or Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -17- c) member(s) of the Homeowner’s household who have resided in the Home for at least one year immediately prior to Homeowner’s death. Any other heirs, legatees or devisees of Homeowner, in addition to submitting Letters of Agreement and Attorney’s Acknowledgment as provided above, must demonstrate to CLT’s satisfaction that they are Income -Qualified Persons as defined above. If they cannot demonstrate that they are Income -Qualified Persons, they shall not be entitled to possession of the Home but must transfer the Home in accordance with the provisions of this Article. 10.4 HOMEOWNER MUST GIVE NOTICE OF INTENT TO SELL: In the event that Homeowner wishes to sell Homeowner’s Property, Homeowner shall notify CLT, in writing, of such wish (the Intent-to-Sell Notice). This Notice shall include a statement as to whether Homeowner wishes to recommend a prospective buyer as of the date of the Notice. 10.5 UPON RECEIVING NOTICE, CLT HAS AN OPTION TO PURCHASE THE HOME. Upon receipt of an Intent-to-Sell Notice from Homeowner, CLT shall have the option to purchase the Home at the Purchase Option Price calculated as set forth below. The Purchase Option is designed to further the purpose of preserving the affordability of the Home for succeeding Income-Qualified Persons while taking fair account of the investment by the Homeowner. If CLT elects to purchase the Home, CLT shall exercise the Purchase Option by notifying Homeowner, in writing, of such election (the Notice of Exercise of Option) within forty -five (45) days of the receipt of the Intent-to-Sell Notice, or the Option shall expire. Having given such notice, CLT may either proceed to purchase the Home directly or may assign the Purchase Option to an Income -Qualified Person. The purchase (by CLT or CLT’s assignee) must be completed within sixty (60) days of CLT’s Notice of Exercise of Option, or Homeowner may sell the Home and Homeowner’s rights to the Leased Land as provided in Section 10.7 below. The time permitted for the completion of the purchase may be extended by mutual agreement of CLT and Homeowner. 10.6 IF PURCHASE OPTION EXPIRES, HOMEOWNER MAY SELL ON CERTAIN TERMS: If the Purchase Option has expired or if CLT has failed to complete the purchase within the sixty-day period allowed by Section 10.5 above, Homeowner may sell the Home to any Income-Qualified Person for not more than the then applicable Purchase Option Price. If Homeowner has made diligent efforts to sell the Home for at least six months after the expiration of the Purchase Option (or six months after the expiration of such sixty-day period) and the Home still has not been sold, the CLT once again retains the right to exercise its Purchase Option as outline in section 10.5 above. If the CLT fails to exercise that right and the Home remains unsold, the Homeowner may then sell the Home, for a price no greater than the then applicable Purchase Option Price, to any party regardless of whether that party is an Income -Qualified Person. 10.7 AFTER ONE YEAR CLT SHALL HAVE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO CONDUCT SALE: If CLT does not exercise its option and complete the purchase of Homeow ner’s Property as described above, and if Homeowner (a) is not then residing in the Home and (b) continues to hold Homeowner’s Property out for sale but is unable to locate a buyer and Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -18- execute a binding purchase and sale agreement within one year of the da te of the Intent to Sell Notice, Homeowner does hereby appoint CLT its attorney in fact to seek a buyer, negotiate a reasonable price that furthers the purposes of this Lease, sell the property, and pay to the Homeowner the proceeds of sale, minus CLT’s costs of sale and any other sums owed CLT by Homeowner. 10.8 PURCHASE OPTION PRICE EQUALS LESSER OF APPRAISED VALUE OF HOMEOWNER’S OWNERSHIP INTEREST OR FORMULA PRICE: In no event may the Home be sold for a price that exceeds the Purchase Option Price. The Purchase Option Price shall be the lesser of (a) the Appraised Value of Homeowner’s Ownership Interest at Resale calculated in accordance with Section 10.9 below or (b) the Formula Price calculated in accordance with Section 10.10 below. If CLT does not choose to commission an appraisal to determine the appraised value of Homeowner’s Ownership Interest, then the Purchase Option Price shall be the Formula Price. 10.9 HOW THE VALUE OF HOMEOWNER’S OWNERSHIP INTEREST IS DETERMINED: If CLT believes that the value of Homeowner’s Ownership Interest at Resale may be less than the Formula Price, CLT may, within 15 days of receiving Homeowner’s Notice of Intent to Sell, commission a market valuation of the Leased Land and the Home to be performed by a duly licensed appraiser acceptable to CLT. CLT shall pay the cost of such Appraisal. The Appraisal shall be conducted by analysis and comparison of comparable properties as though title to Land and Home were held in fee simple absolute by a single party, disregarding all of the restrictions of this Lease on the use, occupancy and transfer of the property. Copies of the Appraisal are to be provided to both CLT and Homeowner. CLT and Homeowner agree that, at the time when Homeowner purchased the Home and executed the Lease with the CLT, the appraised market value of the Home and Leased Land was $_______ (the “Initial Value), as documented by the appraiser’s report attached to this Lease as Exhibit INITIAL APPRAISAL. CLT and Homeowner further agree that Homeowner’s Base Price was $ ________, and that this amount equals ___% of the Initial Value (the Ratio of Base Price to Initial Value) The Value of Homeowner’s Ownership Interest at Resale then equals the appraised value of the Home and Leased Land at resale multiplied by the Ratio of Base Price to Initial Value. 10.10 HOW THE FORMULA PRICE IS CALCULATED: The Formula Price shall be equal to the amount of Homeowner’s Base Price (which CLT and Homeowner agree is $_______) plus 1.75% per year, simple interest. As an example, assume the Homeowner paid $170,000 for his or her interest in the Home. Then the resale price would be: Year Value Appreciation Purchase Year 2018 Resale Year 2023 Resale Year 2028 Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -19- Resale Year 2033 10.11 QUALIFIED PURCHASER SHALL RECEIVE NEW LEASE: The CLT shall issue a new lease to any person who purchases the Home in accordance with the terms of this Article 10. The terms of such lease shall be the same as those of new leases issued to homebuyers at that time for land not previously leased by the CLT. 10.12 HOMEOWNER AND PURCHASER PAY LEASE TERMINATION FEE. When the Homeowner sells the home, the Homeowner will pay a Lease Termination Fee of 3% to the CLT, out of the proceeds of the sale of the home. In addition, the price to be paid by the P urchaser shall include , in addition to the Purchase Option Price, a t the discretion of the CLT, an increase of up to 3% to pay for the Purchaser’s portion of the lease termination fee . The purpose of the Lease Termination Fee is to compensate the CLT for carrying out its responsibilities with regard to the transaction. 10.13 HOMEOWNER REQUIRED TO MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS AT TRANSFER: The Homeowner is required to make necessary repairs when Homebuyer voluntarily tra nsfers the Home as follows: a) The person purchasing the Home (“Buyer”) shall, prior to purchasing the Home, hire at Buyer’s sole expense a certified and licensed (if a license is required by the State of Utah) home inspector with a current Home Inspector certification and license to assess the condition of the Home and prepare a written report of the condition (“Inspection Report”). The Homeowner shall cooperate fully with the inspection. b) The Buyer shall provide a copy of the Inspection Report to Buyer’s lender (if any), the Homeowner, and the CLT within 10 days after receiving the Inspection Report. c) Homeowner shall repair specific reported defects or conditions necessary to bring the Home into full compliance with Sections 4.2 and 7.5 above prior to transferring the Home. d) Homeowner shall bear the full cost of the necessary repairs and replacements. However, upon Homeowner’s written request, the CLT may allow the Homeowner to pay all or a portion of the repair costs after transfer, from Homeowner’s proceed s of sale, if Homeowner cannot afford to pay such costs prior to the transfer. In such event, either (i) 150% of the unpaid estimated cost of repairs or (ii) 100% of the unpaid cost of completed repairs shall be withheld from Homeowner’s proceeds of sale in a CLT-approved escrow account. Also, upon Homeowner’s written request, CLT may, at its discretion, agree to release funds from the Repair Reserve Fund to cover some or all of the cost of such repairs, provided that such use of the Reserve is in full compliance with Section 7.6 above. e) Homeowner shall allow CLT, Buyer, and Buyer’s building inspector and lender’s representative to inspect the repairs prior to closing to determine that the repairs have been satisfactorily completed. f) Upon sale or other trans fer, Homeowner shall either (i) transfer the Home with all originally purchased appliances or replacements in the Home in good working order or (ii) reduce the Purchase Option Price by the market value of any such appliances that are not left with the Home in good working order. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -20- ARTICLE 11: Reserved ARTICLE 12: Default 12.1 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER FAILS TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE CLT THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE LEASE: It shall be an event of default if Homeowner fails to pay the Lease Fee or other charges required by the terms of this Lease and such failure is not cured by Homeowner or a Permitted Mortgagee within thirty (30) days after notice of such failure is given by CLT to Homeowner and Permitted Mortgagee. However, if Homeowner makes a good faith pa rtial payment of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the amount owed during the 30-day cure period, then the cure period shall be extended by an additional 30 days. 12.2 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER VIOLATES OTHER (NONMONETARY) TERMS OF THE LEASE: It shall be an event of default if Homeowner fails to abide by any other requirement or restriction stated in this Lease, and such failure is not cured by Homeowner or a Permitted Mortgagee within sixty (60) days after notice of such failure is given by CLT to Homeowner and Permitted Mortgagee. However, if Homeowner or Permitted Mortgagee has begun to cure such default within the 60-day cure period and is continuing such cure with due diligence but cannot complete the cure within the 60-day cure period, the cure period sha ll be extended for as much additional time as may be reasonably required to complete the cure. 12.3 WHAT HAPPENS IF HOMEOWNER DEFAULTS AS A RESULT OF JUDICIAL PROCESS: It shall be an event of default if the estate hereby created is taken on execution or by other process of law, or if Homeowner is judicially declared bankrupt or insolvent according to law, or if any assignment is made of the property of Homeowner for the benefit of creditors, or if a receiver, trustee in involuntary bankruptcy or other similar officer is appointed to take charge of any substantial part of the Home or Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land by a court of competent jurisdiction, or if a petition is filed for the reorganization of Homeowner under any provisions of the Bankruptcy Act now or hereafter enacted, or if Homeowner files a petition for such reorganization, or for arrangements under any provision of the Bankruptcy Act now or hereafter enacted and providing a plan for a debtor to settle, satisfy or extend the time for payment of debts. 12.4 A DEFAULT (UNCURED VIOLATION) GIVES CLT THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE OR EXERCISE ITS PURCHASE OPTION: a) TERMINATION: In the case of any of the events of default described above, CLT may terminate this lease and initiate summary proceedings under applicable law against Homeowner, and CLT shall have all the rights and remedies consistent with such laws and resulting court orders to enter the Leased Land and Home and repossess the entire Leased Land and Home, and expel Homeowner and those claiming rights through Homeowner. In addition, CLT shall have such additional rights and remedies to recover from Homeowner arrears of rent and damages from any preceding breach of any covenant of this Lease. If this Lease is terminated by CLT pursuant to an Event of Default, then, as provided in Section 7.7 above, upon thus assuming title to the Home, CLT shall pay to Homeowner and any Permitted Mortgagee an amount equal to the Purchase Option Price calculated in accordance with Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -21- Section 10.9 above, as of the time of reversion of ownership, less the total amount of any unpaid Lease Fee and any other amounts owed to the CLT under the terms of this Lease and all reasonable costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) incurred by CLT in pursuit of its remedies under this Lease. If CLT elects to terminate the Lease, then the Permitted Mortgagee shall have the right (subject to Article 8 above and the attached Exhibit: Permitted Mortgages) to postpone and extend the specified date for the termination of the Lease for a period sufficient to enable the Permitted Mortgagee or its designee to acquire Homeowner’s interest in the Home and the Leased Land by foreclosure of its mortgage or otherwise. b) EXERCISE OF OPTION: In the case of any of the events of default described above, Homeowner hereby grants to the CLT (or its assignee) the option to purchase the Home for the Purchase Option Price as such price is defined in Article 10 above. Within thirty (30) days after the expiration of any applicable cure period as established in Sections 12.1 or 12.2 above or within 30 days after any of the events constituting an Event of Default under Section 12.3 above, CLT shall notify the Homeowner and the Permitted Mortgagee(s) of its decision to exercise its option to purchase under this Section 12.4(b). Not later than ninety (90) days after the CLT gives notice to the Homeowner of the CLT’s intent to exercise its option under this Section 12.4(a), the CLT or its assignee shall purchase the Home for the Purchase Option Price. 12.5 WHAT HAPPENS IF CLT DEFAULTS: CLT shall in no event be in default in the performance of any of its obligations under the Lease unles s and until CLT has failed to perform such obligations within sixty (60) days, or such additional time as is reasonably required to correct any default, after notice by Homeowner to CLT properly specifying CLT’s failure to perform any such obligation. ARTICLE 13: Mediation and Arbitration 13.1 If a dispute arises between CLT and Homeowner, either party may initiate the dispute resolution process by delivering to the other party a written notice of the issue(s) and a proposal to settle the dispute. The recipient shall respond to the proposed solution within 10 days, and shall either agree to the proposed solution or propose an alternative solution. The parties shall continue to correspond until a settlement has been reached or the parties realize that the correspondence will not settle the dispute. The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle the dispute. If the initial correspondence does not settle the dispute, the parties or their representatives shall meet on at least one occasion to attempt to resolve the dispute. The time and place, within 14 days of the second party’s response, shall be mutually agreeable to both parties. If the meeting does not produce a resolution, then any and all disputes arising out of or related to this Lease shall be submitted to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable mediator prior to initiating any other resolution process. The mediator shall have expertise in real estate and leases. The parties will be bound to the terms of any mutually agreed upon settlement agreement, which is enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction. 13.2 Homeowner and CLT shall each pay one half (50%) of any costs incurred in carrying out mediation or arbitration in which the parties have agreed to engage , and shall pay their own personal attorneys. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -22- ARTICLE 14: GENERAL PROVISIONS 14.1 HOMEOWNER’S MEMBERSHIP IN CLT: The Homeowner under this Lease shall automatically be a regular voting member of the CLT. 14.2 NOTICES: Whenever this Lease requires either party to give notice to the other, the notice shall be given in writing and delivered in person, by overnight courier, or mailed, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the party at the address set forth below, or such other address designated by like written notice: If to CLT: Salt Lake City Corporation c/o Director, Housing and Neighborhood Development 451 South State Street, Room 425 P.O. Box 145487 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5487 With a copy to: If to Homeowner: All notices, demands and requests shall be effective upon being deposited in the United States Mail or, in the case of personal delivery, upon actual receipt. 14.3 NO BROKERAGE: Homeowner warrants that it has not dealt with any real estate broker other than __________________ in connection with the purchase of the Home. If any claim is made against CLT regarding dealings with brokers other than _________________, Homeowner shall defend CLT against such claim with counsel of CLT’s selection and shall reimburse CLT for any loss, cost or damage which may result from such claim. 14.4 SEVERABILITY AND DURATION OF LEASE: If a ny part of this Lease is unenforceable or invalid, such material shall be read out of this Lease and shall not affect the validity of any other part of this Lease or give rise to any cause of action of Homeowner or CLT against the other, and the remainder of this Lease shall be valid and enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. It is the intention of the parties that CLT’s option to purchase and all other rights of both parties under this Lease shall continue in effect for the full term of this Lease and any renewal thereof, and shall be considered to be coupled with an interest. 14.5 RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IN LIEU OF OPTION: If the provisions of the purchase option set forth in Article 10 of this Lease shall, for any reason, become unenforceable , CLT shall nevertheless have a right of first refusal to purchase the Home at the highest documented bona fide purchase price offer made to Homeowner. Such right shall be as specified in Exhibit FIRST REFUSAL. Any sale or transfer contrary to this Section, when applicable, shall be null and void. 14.6 WAIVER: The waiver by CLT at any time of any requirement or restriction in this Lease, or the failure of CLT to take action with respect to any breach of any such requirement or restriction, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such requirement or restriction with regard to any subsequent breach of such requirement or restriction, or of any other Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -23- requirement or restriction in the Lease. CLT may grant waivers in the terms of this Lease, but such waivers must be in writing and signed by CLT before being effective. The subsequent acceptance of Lease Fee payments by CLT shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Homeowner of any requirement or restriction in this Lease, other than the failure of the Homeowner to pay the particular Lease Fee so accepted, regardless of CLT’s knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such Lease Fee payment. 14.7 CLT’S RIGHT TO PROSECUTE OR DEFEND: CLT shall have the right, but shall have no obligation, to prosecute or defend, in its own or the Homeowner’s name, any actions or proceedings appropriate to the protection of its own or Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land. Whenever requested by CLT, Homeowner shall give CLT all reasonable aid in any such action or proceeding. 14.8 CONSTRUCTION: Whenever in this Lease a pronoun is used it shall be construed to represent the singular or the plural, masculine or feminine, as the case shall demand. 14.9 HEADINGS AND TABLE OF CONTENTS: The headings, subheadings and table of contents appearing in this Lease are for convenience only, and are not a part of this Lease and do not in any way limit or amplify the terms or conditions of this Lease. 14.10 PARTIES BOUND: This Lease sets forth the entire agreement between CLT and Homeowner with respect to the leasing of the Land; it is binding upon and inures to the benefit of these parties and, in accordance with the provisions of this Lease, their respective successors in interest. This Lease may be alt ered or amended only by written notice executed by CLT and Homeowner or their legal representatives or, in accordance with the provisions of this Lease, their successors in interest. 14.11 GOVERNING LAW: This Lease shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of Utah. The language in all parts of this Lease shall be, in all cases, construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against CLT or Homeowner. Any action shall be brought in Salt Lake City, Utah. 14.12 RECORDING: The parties agree, as an alternative to the recording of this Lease, to execute a so-called Notice of Lease or Short Form Lease in form recordable and complying with applicable law and reasonably satisfactory to CLT’s attorneys. In no event sh all such document state the rent or other charges payable by Homeowner under this Lease; and any such document shall expressly state that it is executed pursuant to the provisions contained in this Lease, and is not intended to vary the terms and conditions of this Lease . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease to be effective as of the Effective Date . CLT: Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -24- By Director of Housing and Neighborhood Division ATTEST: City Recorder Approved as to Form Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By Date: Homeowner: [Insert name] [Insert name] Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -25- Exhibit LETTER OF AGREEMENT Sample Letter of Agreement To Salt Lake City Corporation, acting as the Community Land Trust program (“the CLT”) Date: ____________ This letter is given to the CLT to become an exhibit to a Lease between the CLT and me. I will be leasing a parcel of land from the CLT and will be buying the home that sits on that parcel of land. I will therefore become what is described in the Lease as a “the Homeowner.” I have had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel to explain to me the terms and conditions of this transaction. I may choose to waive t he right to consult with legal counsel. I understand the terms and conditions of this transaction will affect my rights as a CLT homeowner, now and in the future. In particular I understand and agree with the following points. One of the goals of the CLT is to keep CLT homes affordable for lower income households from one CLT homeowner to the next. I support this goal as a CLT homeowner and as a member of the CLT. The terms and conditions of my Lease will keep my home affordable for future “income - qualified persons” (as defined in the Lease). If and when I want to sell my home, the lease requires that I sell it either to the CLT or to another income -qualified person. The terms and conditions of the lease also limit the price for which I can sell the home, in order to keep it affordable for such income -qualified persons. I understand that this means that the amount of equity I can realize in a sale of my home is limited. It is also a goal of the CLT to promote resident ownership of CLT homes. For this re ason, my Lease requires that, if I and my family move out of our home permanently, we must sell it. We cannot continue to own it as absentee owners. I understand that I can leave my home to my child or children or other members of my household and that, a fter my death, they can own the home for as long as they want to live in it and abide by the terms of the Lease, or they can sell it on the terms permitted by the Lease. As a CLT homeowner and a member of the CLT, it is my desire to see the terms of the Lease and related documents honored. I consider these terms fair to me and others. Sincerely [Insert homeowner name] Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -26- Exhibit ATTORNEY’S LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR HOMEOWNER’S WAIVER Sample Letter of Attorney’s Letter of Acknowledgment Or Homeowner’s Waiver Option A: Attorney’s Letter I, ___________________________, have been independently employed by _____________________________ (hereinafter “the Client”) who intends to purchase a house and other improvements (the “Home”) on land to be leased from Community Land Trust. The house and land are located at ______________________________________. In connection with the contemplated purchase of the Home and the leasing of the land, I reviewed with the Client the following documents: a) this Letter of Attorney’s Acknowledgment and a Letter of Agreement from the Client; b) a proposed Deed conveying the Home to the Client; c) a proposed Ground Lease conveying the “Leased Land” to the Client; d) other written materials provided by the CLT. The Client has received full and complete information and advice regarding this conveyance and the foregoing documents. In my review of these documents my purpose has been to reasonably inform the Client of the present and foreseeable risks and legal conse quences of the contemplated transaction. The Client is entering the aforesaid transaction in reliance on her /his own judgment and upon her/his investigation of the facts. The advice and information provided by me was an integral element of such investiga tion. Name Date Title Firm/Address Option B: Homeowner’s Waiver I [We], ________________________, understand and acknowledge that I have had the opportunity to have an attorney review this Lease , the Homeowner’s Letter of Agreement, the Deed, and any other materials provided the CLT, and advise me regarding my rights and obligations under these documents, and the present and foreseeable risks and legal consequences of the transaction. I further acknowledges that I am entering into this transaction in reliance on my own judgment and upon my investigation of the facts. I acknowledge that I have read and understand the paragraph above: Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -27- Initials: __________ __________ I have waived my rights to c onsult with an attorney regarding this transaction: Initials: __________ __________ [Insert homeowner name] Date: [Insert homeowner name] Date: Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -28- Exhibit LEASED LAND [Correct legal description of area of Leased Land and appurtenant title rights and obligations.] Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -29- Exhibit DEED WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO : Salt Lake City Corporation Housing and Neighborhood Development 451 South State Street, Room 425 P.O. Box 145487 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5487 Tax Parcel No. _____________ Special Warranty Deed SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation (Grantor), having its principal offices at ____________, ____________, ___________, hereby conveys and warrants against all who claim by, through, or under the Grantor to JOHN AND MARY DOE (Grantees), residing at ______________, ______________, _____ for the sum of one dollar, the following described real property located in Salt Lake County, Utah: THE BUILDINGS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ONLY, as presently erected on the Land described in Schedule “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof. It is the intention of the parties that the real property underlying the buildings and other improvements conveyed herein remain vested in Grantor and that this special warranty deed convey only such buildings and other improvements as are presently erected upon the subject Land. Witness the hand of said Grantor, as authorized agent of Grantor, this _____day of _______________, 20__. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -30- CLT: Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation By Director of Housing and Neighborhood Division ATTEST: City Recorder Approved as to Form Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By Date: STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) The foregoing instrument was duly acknowledged before me this ______ d ay of ______________, 20__, by __________, ____________ of Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation. __________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in Salt Lake County, Utah Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -31- Exhibit PERMITTED MORTGAGES The rights and provisions set forth in this Exhibit shall be understood to be provisions of Section 8.2 of the Lease. All terminology used in this Exhibit shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Lease. A. OBLIGATIONS OF PERMITTED MORTGAGEE. Any Permitted Mortgagee shall be bound by each of the following requirements unless the particular requirement is removed, contradicted or modified by a rider to this Le ase signed by the Homeowner and the CLT to modify the terms of the Lease during the term of the Permitted Mortgage. 1. If Permitted Mortgagee sends a notice of default to the Homeowner because the Homeowner has failed to comply with the terms of the Permitted Mortgage, the Permitted Mortgagee shall, at the same time, send a copy of that notice to the CLT. Upon receiving a copy of the notice of default and within that period of time in which the Homeowner has a right to cure such default (the “cure period”), the CLT shall have the right to cure the default on the Homeowner’s behalf, provided that all current payments due the Permitted Mortgagee since the notice of default was given are made to the Permitted Mortgagee. 2. If, after the cure period has e xpired, the Permitted Mortgagee intends to accelerate the note secured by the Permitted Mortgage or begin foreclosure proceedings under the Permitted Mortgage, the Permitted Mortgagee shall first notify CLT of its intention to do so, and CLT shall then have the right, upon notifying the Permitted Mortgagee within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, to acquire the Permitted Mortgage by paying off the debt secured by the Permitted Mortgage. 3. If the Permitted Mortgagee acquires title to the Home thr ough foreclosure or acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Permitted Mortgagee shall give CLT written notice of such acquisition and CLT shall then have an option to purchase the Home from the Permitted Mortgagee for the full amount owing to the Permitted Mortgagee under the Permitted Mortgage. To exercise this option to purchase, CLT must give written notice to the Permitted Mortgagee of CLT’s intent to purchase the Home within thirty (30) days following CLT’s receipt of the Permitted Mortgagee’s notice. CLT must then complete the purchase of the Home within sixty (60) days of having given written notice of its intent to purchase. If CLT does not complete the purchase within this 60-day period, the Permitted Mortgagee shall be free to sell the Home to another person. 4. Nothing in the Permitted Mortgage or related documents shall be construed as giving Permitted Mortgagee a claim on CLT’s interest in the Leased Land, or as assigning any form of liability to the CLT with regard to the Leased Land, the Home, or the Permitted Mortgage. 5. Nothing in the Permitted Mortgage or related documents shall be construed as rendering CLT or any subsequent Mortgagee of CLT’s interest in this Lease, or their respective heirs, executors, successors or assigns, personally liable for the payment of the debt secured by the Permitted Mortgage or any part thereof. 6. The Permitted Mortgagee shall not look to CLT or CLT’s interest in the Leased Land, but will look solely to Homeowner, Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land, and the Home for the payment of the debt secured thereby or any part thereof. (It is the intention of the parties Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -32- hereto that CLT’s consent to such the Permitted Mortgage shall be without any liability on the part of CLT for any deficiency judgment.) 7. In the event any part of the Security is taken in condemnation or by right of eminent domain, the proceeds of the award shall be paid over to the Permitted Mortgagee in accordance with the provisions of ARTICLE 9 hereof. 8. CLT shall not be obligated to execute an assignment of the Lease Fee or other rent payable by Homeowner under the terms of this Lease. B. RIGHTS OF PERMITTED MORTGAGEE. The rights of a Permitted Mortgagee as referenced under Section 8.6 of the Lease to which this Exhibit is attached shall be as set forth below. 1. Any Permitted Mortgagee shall, without further consent by CLT, have the right to (a) cure any default under this Lease, and perform any obligation required under this Lease, such cure or performance being effective as if it had been performed by Homeowner; (b) acquire and convey, assign, transfer and exercise any right, remedy or privilege granted to Homeowner by this Lease or otherwise by law, subject to the provisions, if any, in the Permitted Mortgage, which may limit any exercise of any such right, remedy or privilege; and (c) rely upon and enforce any provisions of the Lease to the extent that such provisions are for the benefit of a Permitted Mortgagee. 2. A Permitted Mortgagee shall not be required, as a condition to the exercise of its rights under the Lease, to assume personal liability for the payment and performance of the obligations of the Homeowne r under the Lease. Any such payment or performance or other act by Permitted Mortgagee under the Lease shall not be construed as an agreement by Permitted Mortgagee to assume such personal liability except to the extent Permitted Mortgagee actually takes possession of the Home and Leased Land. In the event Permitted Mortgagee does take possession of the Home and Leased Land and thereupon transfers such property, any such transferee shall be required to enter into a written agreement assuming such personal liability and upon any such assumption the Permitted Mortgagee shall automatically be released from personal liability under the Lease. 3. In the event that title to the estates of both CLT and Homeowner are acquired at any time by the same person or persons, no merger of these estates shall occur without the prior written declaration of merger by Permitted Mortgagee, so long as Permitted Mortgagee owns any interest in the Security or in a Permitted Mortgage. 4. If the Lease is terminated for any reason, or in the event of the rejection or disaffirmance of the Lease pursuant to bankruptcy law or other law affecting creditors’ rights, CLT shall enter into a new lease for the Leased Land with the Permitted Mortgagee (or with any party designated by the Pe rmitted Mortgagee, subject to CLT’s approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), not more than thirty (30) days after the request of the Permitted Mortgagee. Such lease shall be for the remainder of the term of the Lease, effective as of the date of such termination, rejection or disaffirmance, and upon all the terms and provisions contained in the Lease. However, the Permitted Mortgagee shall make a written request to CLT for such new lease within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such termination, Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -33- rejection or disaffirmance, as the case may be. Such written request shall be accompanied by a copy of such new lease, duly executed and acknowledged by the Permitted Mortgagee or the party designated by the Permitted Mortgagee to be the Homeowner thereunder. Any new lease made pursuant to this Section shall have the same priority with respect to other interests in the Land as the Lease. The provisions of this Section shall survive the termination, rejection or disaffirmance of the Lease and shall continue in full effect thereafter to the same extent as if this Section were independent and an independent contract made by CLT, Homeowner and the Permitted Mortgagee. 5. The CLT shall have no right to terminate the Lease during such time as the Permitted Mortgagee has commenced foreclosure in accordance with the provisions of the Lease and is diligently pursuing the same. 6. In the event that CLT sends a notice of default under the Lease to Homeowner, CLT shall also send a notice of Homeowner’s default to Permitted Mortgagee. Such notice shall be given in the manner set forth in Section 14.2 of the Lease to the Permitted Mortgagee at the address which has been given by the Permitted Mortgagee to CLT by a written notice to CLT sent in the manner set forth in said Section 14.2 of the Lease. 7 . In the event of foreclosure sale by a Permitted Mortgagee or the delivery of a deed to a Permitted Mortgagee in lieu of foreclosure in accordance with the provisions of the Lease, at the election of the Permitted Mortgagee the provisions of Article 10, Sections 10.1 through 10.11 shall be deleted and thereupon shall be of no further force or effect as to only so much of the Security so foreclosed upon or transferre d. 8. Before becoming effective, a ny amendments to this Lease must be approved in writing by Permitted Mortgagee, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If Permitted Mortgagee has neither approved nor rejected a proposed amendment within 60 days of its submission to Permitted Mortgagee, then the proposed amendment shall be deemed to be approved. C. STANDARD PERMITTED MORTGAGE AGREEMENT. A Standard Permitted Mortgage Agreement, as identified in Section 8.4 of this Lease, shall be written as follows, and shall be signed by Mortgagee and Homeowner. This Agreement is made by and among: ___________________________________ (Mortgagee) and ___________________________________ (“Homeowner”), Whereas: a) _______________CLT (the “CLT”) and Homeowner have entered, or are entering, into a ground lease (“the Lease”), conveying to Homeowner a leasehold interest in the Land located at _____________________ (“the Leased Land”); and Homeowner has purchased, or is purchasing, the Home located on the Leased Land (“the Home”). b) The Mortgagee has been asked to provide certain financing to the Homeowner, and is being granted concurrently herewith a mortgage and security interest (the “Mortgage”) in the Leased Land and Home, all as more particularly set forth in the Mortgage, attach ed Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -34- hereto as Schedule A. c) The Ground Lease states that the Homeowner may mortgage the Leased Land only with the written consent of CLT. The Ground Lease further provides that CLT is required to give such consent only if the Mortgagee signs this Standard Pe rmitted Mortgage Agreement and thereby agrees to certain conditions that are stipulated herein (“the Stipulated Conditions”). Now, therefore, the Homeowner/Mortgagor and the Mortgagee hereby agree that the terms and conditions of the Mortgage shall include the Stipulated Conditions stated below. Stipulated Conditions: 1) If Mortgagee sends a notice of default to the Homeowner because the Homeowner has failed to comply with the terms of the Mortgage, the Mortgagee shall, at the same time, send a copy of that notice to the CLT. Upon receiving a copy of the notice of default and within that period of time in which the Homeowner has a right to cure such default (the “cure period”), the CLT shall have the right to cure the default on the Homeowner’s behalf, provided that all current payments due the Permitted Mortgagee since the notice of default was given are made to the Mortgagee. 2) If, after such cure period, the Mortgagee intends to accelerate the note secured by the Mortgage or initiate foreclosure proceed ings under the Mortgage, in accordance with the provisions of the Lease, the Mortgagee shall first notify CLT of its intention to do so and CLT shall have the right, but not the obligation, upon notifying the Mortgagee within thirty (30) days of receipt of said notice, to purchase the Mortgagee loans and to take assignment of the Mortgage. 3) If the Mortgagee acquires title to the Home and Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land through foreclosure or acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Mortgag ee shall give the CLT written notice of such acquisition and the CLT shall have an option to purchase the Home and Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land from the Mortgagee for the full amount owing to the Mortgagee; provided, however, that the CLT notifies the Mortgagee in writing of the CLT’s intent to make such purchase within thirty (30) days following the CLT’s receipt of the Mortgagee’s notice of such acquisition of the Home and Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land; further provided that CLT shall complete such purchase within sixty (60) days of having given written notice of its intent to purchase; and provided that, if the CLT does not complete the purchase within such period, the Mortgagee shall be free to sell the Home and Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land to another person; 4) Nothing in the Mortgage or related documents shall be construed as giving the Mortgagee a claim on CLT’s interest in the Leased Land, or as assigning any form of liability to the CLT with regard to the Leased Land, the Home, or the Mortgage. 5) Nothing in the Mortgage shall be construed as rendering CLT or any subsequent holder of the CLT’s interest in and to the Lease, or their respective heirs, executors, successors or assigns, personally liable for the payment of the debt evidenced by such note and such Mortgage or any part thereof. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -35- 6) The Mortgagee shall not look to CLT or CLT’s interest in the Leased Land, but will look solely to Homeowner and Homeowner’s interest in the Leased Land and the Home for the payme nt of the debt secured by the Mortgage. (It is the intention of the parties hereto that CLT’s consent to the Mortgage shall be without any liability on the part of CLT for any deficiency judgment.) 7) In the event that any part of the Leased Land is taken in condemnation or by right of eminent domain, the proceeds of the award shall be paid over to the Mortgagee in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Lease. 8) Nothing in the Mortgage shall obligate CLT to execute an assignment of the L ease Fee or other rent payable by Homeowner under the terms of this Lease. By: _____________________________ for Mortgagee Date: ____________ _____________________________ for Homeowner/Mortgagor Date: ____________ Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -36- Exhibit FIRST REFUSAL Whenever any party under the Lease shall have a right of first refusal as to certain property, the following procedures shall apply. If the owner of the property offering it for sale (“Offering Party”) shall within the term of the Lease receive a bona f ide third party offer to purchase the property which such Offering Party is willing to accept, the holder of the right of first refusal (the “Holder”) shall have the following rights: a) Offering Party shall give written notice of such offer (“the Notice of Offer”) to Holder setting forth (a) the name and address of the prospective purchaser of the property, (b) the purchase price offered by the prospective purchaser and (c) all other terms and conditions of the sale. Holder shall have a period of forty-five (45) days after the receipt of the Notice of Offer (“the Election Period”) within which to exercise the right of first refusal by giving notice of intent to purchase the property (“the Notice of Intent to Purchase”) for the same price and on the same te rms and conditions set forth in the Notice of Offer. Such Notice of Intent to Purchase shall be given in writing to the Offering Party within the Election Period. b) If Holder exercises the right to purchase the property, such purchase shall be completed within sixty (60) days after the Notice of Intent to Purchase is given by Holder (or if the Notice of Offer shall specify a later date for closing, such date) by performance of the terms and conditions of the Notice of Offer, including payment of the purchase price provided therein. c) Should Holder fail to exercise the right of first refusal within the Election Period, then the Offering Party shall have the right (subject to any other applicable restrictions in the Lease) to go forward with the sale which the Offering Party desires to accept, and to sell the property within one (1) year following the expiration of the Election Period on terms and conditions which are not materially more favorable to the purchaser than those set forth in the Notice. If the sale is not consummated within such one -year period, the Offering Party's right so to sell shall end, and all of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be applied again to any future offer, all as aforesaid. If a sale is consummated within such one -year period, the purchaser shall purchase subject to the Holder having a renewed right of first refusal in said property. Salt Lake City CLT Lease 2017 -37- Other Exhibits to be attached as Appropriate SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 1 SALT LAKE CITY SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 2020-2024 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN 2020-2021 ACTION PLAN MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1: JAMES ROGERS DISTRICT 2, VICE CHAIR: ANDREW JOHNSTON DISTRICT 3 , CHAIR: CHRIS WHARTON DISTRICT 4: ANALIA VALDEMOROS DISTRICT 5: DARIN MANO DISTRICT 6: DAN DUGAN DISTRICT 7: AMY FOWLER Prepared by S A L T L A K E C I T Y HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 2 September 10, 2020 PY 2020 Salt Lake City CARES Act Substantial Amendment TO ADD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT-CORONAVIRUS (CDBG-CV) EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT-CORONAVIRUS (ESG-CV) HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH AIDS/HIV-CORONAVIRUS (HOPWA-CV) SUMMARY Substantial Amendments to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan for utilization of CARES HUD-CV funds for coronavirus response and recovery. The requested amendments will allow the award of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act (CARES Act) fund ing to Salt Lake City, a total of $7,138,203 for coronavirus (CV) response and recovery. These funds will be used by Salt Lake City for eligible activities and services in accordance with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV) and Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS/HIV (HOPWA-CV) HUD regulations and CARES Act waivers. CARES HUD-CV1 funds were allocated to Salt Lake City on April 2, 2020 via notification from HUD Acting Assistant Secretary for Community Plann ing and Development. On June 9, 2020, Salt Lake City was notified of an additional allocation of ESG-CV2 funds. On September 11, 2020, Salt Lake City was notified of an additional allocation of CDBG-CV3 funds. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV), first round $2,064,298, third round $999,551 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV), first round $1,040,462 and second round $2,946,449 Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS/HIV (HOPWA -CV), first round $87,443 Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) staff will administer the CARES HUD-CV funds. HAND staff will communicate with the Administration and City Council about the CARES HUD -CV allocation process. CARES HUD-CV FUNDING On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress passed The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (H.R. 748, Public Law 116 -136), which makes available $5 billion in supplemental Community Development Block Grant (CDBG -CV) funding, $1 billion for Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG-CV) and $53.7 million for Hous ing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA-CV) grants to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus . SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 3 The CARES Act stipulated that HUD-CV funding must not fund duplicative activities and requires tracking to ensure no other funding source could be utilized for the expense. Grantees may use HUD -CV funds for a range of activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. Funds must serve low - to moderate-income individuals or households, underserved communities or populations, and align with HUD National Objectives. PROGRAM YEAR (PY) 2020 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT Due to the City’s allocated CARES HUD-CV funding Substantial Amendments to the City’s most recently adopted 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan are required. These Substantial Amendments has been prepared with the guidance from HUD that has been issued to date. HUD REQUIREMENTS HUD’s Substantial Amendment Section 24 CFR 91.505 (b), outlines the criteria for Subst antial Amendment and states “the jurisdiction shall identify in its Citizen Participation Plan the criteria it will use for determining what constitutes a Substantial Amendment. It is these Substantial Amendments that are subject to a citizen participation process, in accordance with the jurisdiction's citizen participation plan.” SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN REQUIREMENTS Salt Lake City’s Consolidated Plan for 2020 -2024 Citizen Participation Plan defines a Substantial Amendment as: 1. A proposed use of funds that does not address a goal or underlying strategy identified in the governing Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan; or 2. Increasing funding levels for a given project by 100% or more of the previously adopted amount; or 3. Decreasing funding levels for a given project by 100% AND pivoting impacted funds to another approved use during an action plan period; or 4. A change to a regulatory requirement or additional allocated funding from the US Department of Housing & Urban Development that defines that a Substantial Amendment must be completed. Substantial Amendment to 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan: #1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding Section SP-35, The Strategic Plan, Anticipated Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 146 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The CARES HUD-CV allocations represent an additional allocation of funding from HUD to Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial Amendment. (See the SP-35 Anticipated Resources Appendix) The City’s current 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding and eligible uses of the grant funds. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 4 . Substantial Amendments to 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan): #1 Shortened Public Comment Period Citizen Participation, HUD 24 CFR 91.105. Located on page 281 of the 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020 -2024 Consolidated Plan) Substantial Amendments are required to follow the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, as outlined in the Consolidated Plan for 2020 -2024, which under normal circumstances, requires a public comment period for the Substantial Amendment of thirty (30) days. However, to quickly implement the funds and activities of the CARES HUD-CV, HUD has waived that requirement with amendment to the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, reducing the public comment period to five (5) days. Further, HUD is allowing the Citizen Participation Plan and the Substantial Amendment to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020 Annual Action Plan to run concurrently. Although the CARES Act has shortened the public comment period to five (5) days, Salt Lake City Ordinance requires a fourteen (14) days public com ment period. Salt Lake City will utilize a fourteen (14) day public comment period for this Substantial Amendment. The City’s current 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan will be amended to reflect this change and accept a fourteen (14) day public comment period. This Shortened Public Comment Period amendment only applies to the CARES HUD - CV allocation, and not to other funding allocated by HUD. Substantial Amendment to 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan: #1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding Section AP -15, Expected Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 33 of the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan. A Substantial Amendment is required to accept the CARES HUD -CV. These funds represent an additional allocation of funding from HUD to Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan. (See the AP-15 Expected Resources Appendix) The City’s current 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding and eligible uses of grant f unds . PUBLIC PROCESS The 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020 -2014 Consolidated Plan) specifies the policies and procedures that encourage participation by Salt Lake City residents in the planning, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 5 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citizen Participation Plan encourages participation from citizens in neighborhoods that receive significant federal funding and from c itizens living throughout the City. The public is invited to comment on the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan before adoption by City Council. Per the guidance outlined in Consolidated Plan announcements of a Substantial Amendment may be communicated by the following way(s): 1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; or 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; or 3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; or 4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing. In all areas, the City will look to include the use of electronic communication, meetings, training, noticing, outreach, etc. where appropriate provided it is clearly communicated for participation by the general public. Electronic draft documents of Substantial Amendments will be made available for public review and comment. Where allowable, the City will follow t he required noticing of fourteen (14) calendar days. An electronic version of the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan will be posted on the City’s official web site during the same period. Due to the current COVID Emergency Declaration for Salt Lake City issued by Mayor Mendenhall on March 10, 2020 and since extended to -date, Salt Lake City facilities may be closed and documents will need to be reviewed electronically and in accordance with City policy. All comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Salt Lake City Council staff and Housing and Neighborhood Development staff. Comments may be incorporated into the final Substantial Amendments document. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be attached to the Substantial Amendments. A copy of the Substantial Amendments will be available at www.slc.gov/HAND. Comments will be accepted from September 10 through September 23, 2020. Prior to making decisions on the Substantial Amendments the Salt Lake City Council will consider and review all public comments. Written comments may be submitted to the Council at Comments.Council@slcgov.com, or to the Housing and Neighborhood Development contact at Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages may be left on the Council comment telephone number; 801 -535-7654. COORDINATION WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS Salt Lake City has worked closely with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and other community partners to ensure funds are strategically targeted to reach our most vulnerable residents who are impacted by coronavirus and programs are not duplicative. Community Partners include: Other regional CARES HUD-CV grantees Salt Lake City CARES HUD-CV Internal Working Group SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21 6 Salt Lake City’s Resident Advisory Group, the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Board HUD Regional Office HUD Technical Assistance Representative National homeless and affordable housing consultants and advocacy groups HUD requires CV grantees to prevent the duplication of benefits, which means grant funds may not be used to pay costs if another source of financial assistance is available to pay that cost. HAND will work with selected community partners and track other funding and community benefits in order to prevent duplication of services. CONTACT INFORMATION Lani Eggertsen-Goff, Director Housing and Neighborhood Development Salt Lake City Corporation Lani.Eggertsen-Goff@slcgov.com 801-535-6240 Tony Milner, Policy and Program Manager Housing and Neighborhood Development Salt Lake City Corporation Tony.Milner@slcgov.com (801) 535-6168 TO VIEW THE: 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN, 2020 -2024 CITIZEN PARTCIPATION PLAN, and 2020-2021 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, please click on the following link, or visit HAND’s main website page at www.slc.gov/HAND/. APPENDICES : Substantial Amendments to SP-35 Anticipated Resources and AP-15 Expected Resources 1 | P a g e SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT APPENDIX SP-35, ANTICIPATED RESOURCES HUD CFR 24, 91.215(A)(4), 91.220(C)(1,2) Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $13,600,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $4,600,000 Program income is typically generated from housing loan repayments from nonprofit agencies. Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily 2 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA ES G Administration $301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,160,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re-Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $600,876 $0 $15,000 $615,876 $1,720,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Permanent Housing in Facilities Permanent Housing Placement STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA OT H E R : HO U S I N G – TR U S T F U N D Acquisitions $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust Fund has a budget of $2m and expects to receive a total of approximately $3m in revenue over the next plan period. Administration Conversion and Rehab for Transitional Housing Homebuyer Rehabilitation Housing Multifamily Rental New Construction Multifamily Rental Rehab New Construction for Ownership Permanent Housing in Facilities Rapid Re-Housing Rental Assistance TBRA 3 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Transitional Housing OT H E R PR O G R A M IN C O M E All CDBG Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000 Salt Lake City Housing Programs – Program Income All HOME Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules OT H E R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T L O A N FU N D Economic Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000 The fund currently has a balance of approximately $4m. OT H E R F U N D S – CA R E S H U D -CV HUD and CARES Act Eligible Activities CDBG-CV1 $2,064,298 CDBG-CV3 $999,551 ESG-CV1 $1,040,462 ESG-CV2 $2,946,449 HOPWA-CV1 $87,443 $0 $0 $7,138,203 $7,138,203 CARES HUD- CV allocations to respond to and recovery from COVID- 19. 4 | P a g e AP -15, EXPECTED RESOURCES HUD CFR 24, 91.220(C)(1,2) Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $13,600,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $4,600,000 Program income is typically generated from housing loan repayments from nonprofit agencies. Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Rental Rehabilitation 5 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total New Construction for Ownership TBRA ES G Administration $301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,160,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re-Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $600,876 $0 $15,000 $615,876 $1,720,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Permanent Housing in Facilities Permanent Housing Placement STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA OT H E R : HO U S I N G – TR U S T F U N D Acquisitions $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust Fund has a budget of $2m and expects to receive a total of approximately $3m in revenue over the next plan period. Administration Conversion and Rehab for Transitional Housing Homebuyer Rehabilitation Housing Multifamily Rental New Construction Multifamily Rental Rehab New Construction for Ownership Permanent Housing in Facilities Rapid Re-Housing Rental Assistance TBRA Transitional Housing 6 | P a g e Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total OT H E R PR O G R A M IN C O M E All CDBG Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000 Salt Lake City Housing Programs – Program Income All HOME Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules OT H E R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T L O A N FU N D Economic Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000 The fund currently has a balance of approximately $4m. OT H E R F U N D S – CA R E S H U D -CV HUD and CARES Act Eligible Activities CDBG-CV1 $2,064,298 CDBG-CV3 $999,551 ESG-CV1 $1,040,462 ESG-CV2 $2,946,449 HOPWA-CV1 $87,443 $0 $0 $7,138,203 $7,138,203 CARES HUD- CV allocations to respond to and recovery from COVID- 19. Summary of Funding $3,063,849 Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD Matrix HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation Housing Stability Housing Stability: Up to 3 months of mortgage payments (80% AMI). Housing stability resources for vulnerable residents who have been directly impacted by COVID-19. 50% of Salt Lake City residents are in employment sectors that are prone to layoffs and furloughs from COVID-19. Additionally, many Salt Lake City residents are cost burdened or severely cost burdened with housing expenses. A small fraction of loans are covered by the CARES Act forbearance protections and many residents are at risk of slipping into foreclosure. This program will stabilize vulnerable homeowners and ensure they stay in their homes. Subsistence Payments 0GR LMC TBD *10%$300,000 Public Service Agency NPO programs to prepare for and prevent the spread of COVID-19. NPO's can apply for funding to address organization specific needs as it pertains to COVID-1 such as PPE, staff capacity, direct client services, etc. Address organization specific needs and gaps to address COVID-19. Health Services 05M, Other Public Services 05Z LMJP TBD *11%$350,000 Community Stabilization Programs that provide basic needs for the community to respond to COVID-19 such as digital access, food security, or targeted services. Address basic life needs to stabilize and assist residents and youth. Without having basic needs met like food, childcare, and technology individuals and families will continue to struggle to sustain during COVID-19. Food 05W, Child Care 0GL, Tech (Child Care) 0GL, Health Services 05M LMC TBD *16%$500,000 Economic Development - Small Businesses Grants Grant program that provides funding assistance to targeted businesses to be used for payroll, job retention/creation, PPE, etc. This program would strategically target small, minority, or WBE businesses and offer a one- time grant and technical assistance. The program will relieve the financial burden on small businesses. The technical assistance component will assist in addressing technology and/or language barriers so future business needs can be met. Econ Dev Microenterprise Assistance 18C LMCMC TBD *16%$501,438 On September 11, 2020, SLC was notified of a third round of CARES HUD CDBG-CV in the amount of $999,511. These additional funds did not go through the City's previous Internal Working Group recommendation process. 20% of this allocation will be set aside for Administration, with the remaining amount to be determined for a CDBG-CV eligible project / program. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD *$799,641 Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (20%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that administer HUD grants. Salary and overhead expenses for HAND, Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 21A SLC Corp 20%$612,770 $3,063,849 $3,986,911 Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD 24 CFR HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation Homeless Prevention Housing stability: Up to 6 months rent (50% AMI). Housing stability and homeless prevention resources for vulnerable residents who have been directly impacted by COVID-19 including rental assistance, landlord/tenant mediation, shelter diversion, and arrears. CARES Act safety nets expire in July and forecasters anticipate a cliff that will impact tenant stability and will likely include an increase in evictions. 576.103 LMC TBD *43%$1,700,000 Rapid Rehousing Housing Stability: Deposit, rent, and utilities (30% AMI). Provide permanent supportive housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. These program funds will leverage FEMA investment in non-congregate hotel shelter operations. Currently there are over 120 high risk and vulnerable individuals that are housed in hotels that will be placed in permanent housing with wrap around stability services. 576.104 LMC TBD *17%$688,220 Street Outreach Operation expenses related to the prevention and spread of COVID-19. People experiencing unsheltered homelessness (those sleeping outside or in places not meant for human habitation) may be at risk for infection when there is community spread of COVID-19. Lack of housing contributes to poor physical and mental health outcomes, and linkages to permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness should continue to be a priority 576.101 LMC TBD *13%$500,000 Emergency Quarantine Shelter Operation expenses related to the prevention and spread of COVID-19. Operation expenses for non-congregate shelter/motel placement, increasing shelter capacity with motel placement, support of operating costs for PPE for congregate shelter operators and resident treatment programs. HRC's have seen a considerable increase in expenses to combat the spread of COVID-19 in a congregate shelter setting. Additionally, staff have a high risk of exposure and facility configurations are needed to protect staff. 576.102 LMC TBD *18%$700,000 Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (10%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that administer HUD grants. Salary and overhead expenses for HAND, Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 576.108 SLC Corp 10%$398,691 100%$3,986,911 $87,443 Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD CFR 24 HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation Housing Stability Permanent Housing Placement (PHP) and Short-term Rent, Mortgage and Utility Assistance (STRMU). Costs for short-term rent, mortgage or hotel/motel stays to provide quarantine space for eligible households who may have been exposed to infectious diseases such as COVID- 19. Stabilize in adequate housing HOPWA eligible households with compromised immune systems to minimize exposure to COVID-19. 574.300 LMC TBD *94%$82,196 Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (6%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that administer HUD grants. Salary and overhead expenses for HAND, Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 574.300 SLC Corp 6%$5,247 100%$87,443 Total $7,138,203 Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) staff will administer the CARES HUD-CV funds. HAND staff will communicate with the Administration and City Council about the CARES HUD-CV allocation process, which is anticipated to mirror the regular, annual HUD allocation process. This includes a competitive application process, review and recommendation by the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program resident advisory board, the Mayor’s recommendations, and the Council’s recommendations. SALT LAKE CITY CARES HUD-COVID FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (as of September 11, 2020) CARES Act Funds Used to Support Coronavirus Response and Recovery Eligible Activities CDBG-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $2,064,298 (Round 1), $999.551 (Round 3) ESG-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $1,040,462 (Round 1), $2,946,449 (Round 2) HOWPA-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $87,443 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE: October 20, 2020 UPDATED 1:19 PM 10-19-20 RE: Substantial Amendment to 2020-24 Consolidated Plan and 2020-21 Annual Action Plan MOTION 1 – ADOPT I move that the Council approve a resolution amending the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan and approve the signing of a grant agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as recommended by the Administration. Staff Note: Following approval of this motion, the Administration would proceed to accept applications in an open and competitive process, the resident advisory board would review applications in public meetings and make funding recommendations, the Mayor would review and make a second set of funding recommendations, then the Council would review all applications and both sets of funding recommendations to make final funding decisions with the $7.1 million CARES Act HUD grants. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. Annual Action Plan 1 SALT LAKE CITY 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1: VICE CHAIR, VICTORIA PETRO DISTRICT 2: ALEJANDRO PUY DISTRICT 3: CHRIS WHARTON DISTRICT 4: ANALIA VALDEMOROS DISTRICT 5: CHAIR, DARIN MANO DISTRICT 6: DAN DUGAN DISTRICT 7: AMY FOWLER Prepared by S A L T L A K E C I T Y HOUSING STABILITY DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 3 Annual Action Plan 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AP-05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. PR-05 LEAD & RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ................................................................................................ 8 AP-10 CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................................... 9 AP-12 PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................................................. 21 AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.6 AP-20 ANNUAL GOAL & STRATEGIES .................................................................................................... 31 AP-35 PROJECTS (Summary) ................................................................................................................... 34 AP-38 PROJECTS (Table) .......................................................................................................................... 35 AP-50 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.3 AP-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ............................................................................................................... 46 AP-60 PUBLIC HOUSING .......................................................................................................................... 48 AP-65 HOMELESS & OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 49 AP-70 HOPWA GOALS .............................................................................................................................. 53 AP-75 ACTION PLAN BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING............................................................. 53 AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 56 AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................... 61 Annual Action Plan 3 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The Annual Action Plan outlines the activities and funding priorities for the fourth year of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, covering July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024. Annual Action Plan 4 AP-05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - 24 CFR 91.200(C), 91.220(B) Introduction The 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (AAP) identifies how Salt Lake City intends to leverage the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding. These four resources will provide over $8.9 million in support for low- to moderate-income households or areas of the city. Each activity funded under the 2023-24 AAP helps further a goal outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan This Year-4 Annual Action Plan addresses several goals and strategies as outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. These goals are briefly outlined below. Greater detail is provided in section AP-20. 1) Housing: Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. Strategies: • Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods • Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure access to continued stable housing. • Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for income eligible residents. • Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing. • Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and end homelessness. • Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to, supporting obtaining housing via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation. • Provide housing and essential services for persons with HIV/AIDS. Annual Action Plan 5 2) Transportation: Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. Strategies: • Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit in target areas. • Support access to transportation prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations. • Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas. 3) Build Community Resiliency: Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability. Strategies: • Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low-income and vulnerable populations including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities. • Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses through façade improvement programs. • Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses. • Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses. • Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty. • Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet. • Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable populations. 4) Homeless Services: Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Strategies: • Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness. • Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency overflow operations. • Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life. Annual Action Plan 6 • Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services. 5) Behavioral Health: Provide support for low-income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. Strategies: • Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those in need of mental or behavioral health services, including those with HIV/AIDS. 6) Administration Strategies: • To support the administration, coordination, and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA programs. Salt Lake City's strategy for most effectively utilizing HUD funding is heavily influenced by the City's housing market study, the City’s Five-Year Housing Plan, the annual Utah Comprehensive Report on Homelessness, and the adopted Salt Lake City Master Plans that highlight strategic neighborhood investment opportunities. Evaluation of past performance Salt Lake City deliberately monitors the process of advancing the strategic goals outlined in the 2020- 2024 Consolidated Plan. This plan was developed with input from many stakeholders, and it is our responsibility to report back to the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), the residents, the community, and decision makers, the impact of these funds. As we near completion of the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan, here is an evaluation of progress during that time. In preparation for development of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan, Salt Lake City’s Housing Stability Division (HSD) reviewed Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs) submitted to HUD, as well as point-in-time data for the 2022-2023 CAPER, to be submitted to HUD after July 1, 2023. The CAPERs provide an evaluation of past performance and accomplishments in relation to established goals and priorities. The City’s previous Action Plans and CAPERs can be viewed at: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/consolidated-plan/con-plans-aaps-capers/. Annual Action Plan 7 Salt Lake City has made progress on all the goals outlined under the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plans. The 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan shows further progress will be made. In addition, the City was able to comply with statutes and regulations set by HUD. Salt Lake City will receive final reports regarding program year 2022-2023 funding after the end of the program year. This data will inform future decisions about funding allocations. This data will also be fully reflected in the upcoming Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation and Report (CAPER). Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process Citizen participation is an integral part of the Consolidated Plan & Annual Action Plan planning process, as it ensures goals and priorities are defined in the context of the community’s needs and preferences. In addition, the citizen participation process provides a format to educate the community about the City’s federal grant programs. To this end, Salt Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stakeholders and community members during the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. A comprehensive public engagement process included a city-wide survey (including 2,000+ respondents), public hearings, public meetings, one-on-one meetings, stakeholder committee meetings, task force meetings, Salt Lake City internal technical committee meetings, and a public comment period. In total, over 4,000 residents participated in providing input into the Consolidated Plan. The City received input and buy-in from residents, homeless service providers, low-income service providers, anti-poverty advocates, healthcare providers, housing advocates, housing developers, housing authorities, community development organizations, educational institutions, transit authority planners, City divisions and departments, among others. For this 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan, AAP engagement efforts were combined with efforts to engage the residents of Salt Lake City for the development of a new 5-year Housing Plan. The survey was designed in a way to provide information that was useful for both efforts. A total of 287 paper surveys were completed and 3,542 online surveys were collected. For more information on the citizen participation efforts, refer to the AP-10 Consultation section. The full Engagement Report is also included as an attachment. The City held public hearings at different points in the Annual Action Plan process. The General Needs Hearing is an event open to the public to comment on community needs. HSD accepts all comments and looks to understand how federal funding can address these concerns. The City Council Public Hearing is Annual Action Plan 8 an opportunity for the public and non-profit partners to comment on how federal funding may impact their neighborhoods or the services being provided. More information about these hearings is available in the AP-12 Participation section. Summary of public comments A summary of the public comments for the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan can be found in the appendix of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. All comments received for the Consolidated Plan were considered while creating this 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. On November 16, 2022, Housing Stability staff and members of the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board conducted a hybrid, virtual and in-person, General Needs Hearing to hear from residents. Three residents provided comment, focused on the need for addressing mobility issues for elderly and disabled residents, preventing homelessness, and the need for mental health services. On March 21, 2023, a hybrid, virtual and in-person, City Council Public Hearing was held. In general, the comments were very positive and related to the support of specific agencies. The majority of the comments were related to the specific funding recommendations for the agencies. Topics included: homelessness, housing, supportive services, domestic violence, and behavioral health services. A public comment period for the 2023-24 funding recommendations was held from March 21, 2023, to April 18th, 2023. Additionally, the Draft AAP was made available to the public for comment between April 7, 2023, and May 10, 2023. All public comments were accepted and have been taken into consideration for the draft of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All public comments were accepted. Summary Salt Lake City makes a robust effort towards public participation in the drafting of its Annual Action and Consolidated Plans. PR-05 LEAD & RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES – 91.200(B) Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Annual Action Plan 9 Agency Role Name Department/Agency Lead Agency Salt Lake City, UT Housing Stability Division CDBG Administrator Salt Lake City, UT Housing Stability Division HOPWA Administrator Salt Lake City, UT Housing Stability Division HOME Administrator Salt Lake City, UT Housing Stability Division ESG Administrator Salt Lake City, UT Housing Stability Division Table 1 – Responsible Agencies Narrative (optional) Salt Lake City was the sole agency responsible for developing the Consolidated Plan and is solely responsible for the subsequent Annual Action Plans. Salt Lake City administers each of the HUD grant programs and the funding sources. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information • Tony Milner, Director of Housing Stability, o Tony.Milner@slcgov.com or 801-535-6168. • Heather Royall, Deputy Director, o Heather.Royall@slcgov.com or 801-535-7273. • Dillon Hase, Community Development Grant Supervisor, o Dillon.Hase@slcgov.com or 801-535-6402. Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division 451 South State Street, Room 445 P.O. Box 145488 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488 AP-10 CONSULTATION – 91.100, 91.200(B), 91.215(L) Introduction The City engaged in an in-depth and collaborative effort to consult with City departments, representatives of low-income neighborhoods, non-profit and for-profit housing developers, service providers, social service agencies, homeless shelter and service providers, supportive housing and service providers, community stakeholders, community partners, and beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the priorities and strategies contained within the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Salt Lake City continues to engage these critical partners regularly as we look to maximize our potential impact on an annual basis. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l)) Annual Action Plan 10 Salt Lake City is in regular communication with our regional funding partners Salt Lake County, Salt Lake County Continuum of Care, and the State of Utah to coordinate about available funding, and gaps in funding and/or services. Additionally, SLC staff communicate regularly with private and governmental health, mental health, and service agencies. HSD and other key City staff worked closely with regional planning groups, such as the Utah League of Cities and Towns, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Utah Housing Coalition, and the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness, as well as local service providers who provide services to individuals experiencing homelessness and/or behavioral health. The City also coordinates closely with staff from Salt Lake County and the State of Utah Office of Housing and Community Development and Homeless Services Offices. The City is also a key participant in Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and Salt Lake County Continuum of Care. The Coalition helps coordinate the Homeless Resource Centers, homeless supportive services, and affordable housing for homeless individuals in Salt Lake County with the goal of making homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring. City staff participate with the Coalition’s Steering Committee, and various sub-committees and task groups including the coordinated entry task group. Housing Stability staff also participate with the Utah Homeless Management Information Services (HMIS) Steering Committee and the HOPWA Steering Committee. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness. Salt Lake City representatives actively participated in the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH), the entity responsible for oversight of the Continuum of Care (CoC). SLVCEH’s primary goal is to end homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system-wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis, and coordination among all stakeholders. The Coalition gathers community consensus to create and fulfill established outcomes. Outcomes focus on ending homelessness particularly that of chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Using these goals, the Coalition partners with key stakeholders to fill the needs of the Salt Lake County Valley community. City representatives serve on the SLVCEH Steering Committee and sub-committees, and actively participated in meetings and efforts. Annual Action Plan 11 Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care's (CoC) executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care's priorities are considered during grant allocations. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS Allocate ESG Funds Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care's executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care's priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant allocations. Also, the three local ESG funders meet regularly to coordinate ESG and CoC activities to make sure services are not being over or under funded and services being funded meet the community's needs and goals. Develop Performance Standards and Evaluate Outcomes The Salt Lake Continuum of Care and the three ESG funders share common measures to evaluate service providers. The three entities also share monitoring results of subrecipients. Efforts have been made to standardize data collection among the funding agencies. Develop Funding, Policies and Procedures for the Administration of HMIS The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). All service agencies in the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Salt Lake City staff serve on the HMIS Steering Committee to develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes for all homeless service providers located in the Salt Lake CoC. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities ENGAGEMENT COMMUNITY PARTNERS 1 Agency/Group/Organization Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah Annual Action Plan 12 Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Refugees, Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs, Housing Need Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 2 Agency/Group/Organization ASSIST Inc Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities, Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Non-Homeless Special Needs, Lead-based Paint Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 3 Agency/Group/Organization Advantage Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Employment, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless, Veterans, Anti-poverty strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 4 Agency/Group/Organization International Rescue Committee Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Employment, Education, Other – Refugee Services, ESL Services Annual Action Plan 13 What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs, Economic Development, Anti-Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 5 Agency/Group/Organization Community Development Corporation, Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 6 Agency/Group/Organization The Childrens Center Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Children, Education, Health What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 7 Agency/Group/Organization Disability Law Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities, Services – Fair Housing, Services – Legal Aid What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs, Public Housing Needs, Housing Needs Assessment Annual Action Plan 14 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 8 Agency/Group/Organization Donated Dental Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Health, Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs – Chronically homeless, Families with Children, Veterans, Unaccompanied Youth, Non- Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 9 Agency/Group/Organization First Step House Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health, Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Veterans, Homelessness Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 10 Agency/Group/Organization The Road Home Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Housing, Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless, Families with Children, Veterans, Unaccompanied Youth, Homelessness Strategy. Annual Action Plan 15 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 11 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Housing Authority DBA Housing Connect Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing, PHA, Services - Housing, Homeless, Persons with HIV/AIDS What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Need Assessment, Homelessness Strategy, Public Housing Needs, HOPWA Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 12 Agency/Group/Organization Fourth Street Clinic Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless, Families with Children, Veterans, Unaccompanied Youth How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 13 Agency/Group/Organization NeighborWorks Salt Lake Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Anti-Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative Annual Action Plan 16 outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 14 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing, PHA, Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homelessness Strategy, Public Housing Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 15 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government – County, Services – Elderly Persons, Services – Homeless, Planning Organization, Health Agency, Agency – Management of Public Land or Water Resources What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs, Homeless Needs, Lead- based Paint Strategy, Economic Development, Anti- Poverty Strategy, Public Housing Needs, Community Resiliency How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Local Government Agency that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 16 Agency/Group/Organization Shelter the Homeless Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homelessness Strategy, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Families with children, Veterans, Unaccompanied youth Annual Action Plan 17 How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 17 Agency/Group/Organization South Valley Sanctuary Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Victims of Domestic Violence, Housing, Homeless, Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs, Homelessness Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 18 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake Community Action Program dba Utah Community Action Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with HIV/AIDS, homeless, Education What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Anti- Poverty Strategy, HOPWA Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 19 Agency/Group/Organization Volunteers of America - Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically Homeless, Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeless Needs - Annual Action Plan 18 Unaccompanied Youth, Homeless Strategy, Anti-Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 20 Agency/Group/Organization Young Women's Christian Association of Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Children, Victims of Domestic Violence, Homeless, Victims What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homelessness Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide. 21 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Agency/Group/Organization Type Planning Organization, Local Government, Grantee Department What section of the Plan was addressed by consultation? Housing Needs Assessment, Public Housing Needs, Market Analysis, Economic Development, Broadband Access, Digital Divide, Community Resiliency, Anti- Poverty Strategy, Lead-Based Paint Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Local Government Agency that assisted in identifying service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide Annual Action Plan 19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting All agency types were invited to participate in the Annual Action Plan process. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan COMMUNITY PLANS 1 Name of Plan State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The strategic plan establishes statewide goals and benchmarks on which to measure progress toward these goals. The plan recognizes that every community in Utah is different in their challenges, resources available, and needs of those who experience homelessness. 2 Name of Plan Annual Point-in-Time Count Lead Organization State of Utah How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan highlights an initiative to find homeless persons living on the streets and gather information in order to connect them with available services. By doing so, this will help policymakers and program administrators set benchmarks to measure progress toward the goal of ending homelessness, help plan services and programs to appropriately address local needs, identify strengths and gaps in a community’s current homelessness assistance system, inform public opinion, increase public awareness, attract resources, and create the most reliable estimate of people experiencing homelessness throughout Utah. 3 Name of Plan Growing SLC Lead Organization Salt Lake City How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy solutions over the five-year period of this plan will focus on 1) updates to zoning code, 2) preservation of long-term affordable housing, 3) establishment of a significant funding source, 4) stabilizing low-income tenants, 5) innovation in design, 6) partnerships and collaboration in housing, and 7) equitability and fair housing. 4 Name of Plan Salt Lake City Master Plans Lead Organization Salt Lake City Annual Action Plan 20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Salt Lake City's master plans provide vision and goals for future development in the City. The plans guide the development and use of land, as well as provide recommendations for particular places within the City. H utilized the City's master plans to align policies, goals, and priorities. 5 Name of Plan Continuum of Care Lead Organization Salt Lake County How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan emphasizes the promotion of a community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness, provide funding for efforts to quickly re- house individuals and families who are homeless, which minimizes the trauma and dislocation caused by homelessness, promote access to and effective use of mainstream programs, optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness. 6 Name of Plan The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City Lead Organization Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Department How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? This plan focuses on the creation of more equitable housing opportunities for Salt Lake City residents. The plan calls for the creation of more affordable housing and retention of existing affordable housing stock. 7 Name of Plan Strategic Economic Development Plan Lead Organization Salt Lake City Economic Development Department How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? The Strategic Plan establishes an assessment of existing economic conditions of Salt Lake City through analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This information guided a strategic framework that builds on existing strengths and seeks to overcome identified challenges to ensure the City’s fiscal health, enhance its business climate, and promote economic growth. 8 Name of Plan Housing Gap Coalition Report Lead Organization Salt Lake Chamber How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Initiative that seeks to safeguard Utah's economic prosperity by ensuring home ownership is attainable and housing affordability is a priority, protecting Utahns quality of life and expanding opportunities for all. Annual Action Plan 21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 9 Name of Plan Housing Affordability Crisis Lead Organization Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Policy brief regarding the current and projected state of rising housing prices in Utah and recommendations regarding what to do about it. 10 Name of Plan ALL IN: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness Lead Organization United States Interagency Council on Homelessness How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Federal strategic plan that outlines the goal to reduce and ultimately end homelessness in the United States. AP-12 PARTICIPATION – 91.105, 91.200(C) Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting The City recognizes that citizen participation is critical for the development of a Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans that reflect the needs of affected persons and residents. In accordance with 24 CFR 91.105, the City solicited robust citizen participation. For the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, between May 2022 and May 2023, over 4,000 residents, stakeholders, agency partners, and City officials participated through proactive, community-based outreach, facilitated stakeholder engagement, and online surveys. The City involved affected persons and residents through stakeholder consultation, a community survey, community events, public meetings, public hearings, public comment periods, and one-on-one consultations. The full details of these efforts can be found in the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated and 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan. For the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan, between July 2022 to November 2022, Housing Stability staff, in coordination with the Community and Neighborhoods Department, conducted a survey to engage Annual Action Plan 22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) members of the public and receive input on how federal funding could be prioritized. A total of 3,829 survey responses were received and approximately 4,423 individuals provided feedback including mapping the areas of the City where services should be located. See the attached Community Engagement Summary for additional information. Citizen Participation Outreach The below table outlines Salt Lake City’s citizen participation outreach for the 2023 AAP. Annual Action Plan 23 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Sort Or der Mode of Outr each Target of Outr each Summary of response/atten dance Summary of comments rec eived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons 1 Internet Outreach Minorities; Non-English Speaking; Spanish; Persons with Disabilities; Non- Targeted/Broa d community; residents of Public and Assisted Housing 3,542 respondents Respondents ranked new affordable housing as their top housing priority, transit passes as their top transportation priority, affordable medical and dental services as their top community resiliency priority, and housing for persons experiencing homelessness as their top homelessness priority. All responses were accepted. Annual Action Plan 24 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Sort Or der Mode of Outr each Target of Outr each Summary of response/atten dance Summary of comments rec eived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons 2 Survey – Paper Form Individuals Experiencing Homelessness; Persons with Disabilities; Residents of Public and Assisted Housing, Minorities; Non-English Speaking; Spanish; Non- targeted/Broa d Community 287 respondents Respondents ranked new affordable housing as their top housing priority, transit passes as their top transportation priority, affordable medical and dental services as their top community resiliency priority, and housing for persons experiencing homelessness as their top homelessness priority. All responses were accepted. 3 Public Hearing Non- targeted/broa d community 3 respondents Two respondents spoke about the need for accessibility and mobility improvements for elderly homeowners and persons with disabilities. One respondent spoke for the need for mental health services. All responses were accepted. Annual Action Plan 25 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Sort Or der Mode of Outr each Target of Outr each Summary of response/atten dance Summary of comments rec eived Summary of com ments not accepted and reasons 4 Public Hearing Non- targeted/broa d community 14 respondents. Most comments advocated for a specific organization. Topics included: homelessness, housing, supportive services, HIV/AIDS, and behavioral health services. All responses were accepted. 5 Public Notice / Newspaper Ad Non- targeted/broa d community 1 respondent. The comment was from an agency that received funding thanking the Mayor and City Council for their funding award. All responses were accepted. Annual Action Plan 26 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES – 91.220(C)(1,2) Introduction The following table shows the expected resources for the 2023-24 program year. Anticipated Resources Annual Action Plan 27 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 4 Expected Amount Available Remainder of Con Plan Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG Public - Federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services $3,397,763 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $5,597,763 $4,500,000 Funds include $3,397,763 in annual entitlement award, an estimated $1 million in program income and $1.2 million in reallocated funds. Reallocated funding came from several subrecipients who did not fully expend their funding and unspent CDBG administration funding. Annual Action Plan 28 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) HOME Public - Federal Acquisition Homebuyer assistance Homeowner rehab Multifamily rental new construction Multifamily rental rehab New construction for ownership TBRA $1,023,661 $800,000 $200,000 $2,023,661 $1,800,000 Funds include $1,023,661 in annual entitlement award, an estimated $800,000 in program income and $200,000 in reallocated funds. The reallocated funding came from one subrecipient who did not expend their $200,000 award during the previous program year. HOPWA Public - Federal Permanent housing in facilities Permanent housing placement STRMU Short term or transitional housing facilities Supportive services TBRA $932,841 $0 $80,000 $1,012,841 $1,000,000 Funds include $932,841 in annual entitlement award and $80,000 in reallocated funding. Reallocated funds came from unspent funding from all three HOPWA project sponsors. Annual Action Plan 29 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) ESG Public - Federal Conversion and rehab for transitional housing Financial Assistance Overnight shelter Rapid re-housing (rental assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional housing $303,100 $0 $0 $303,100 $300,000 $303,100 in annual entitlement award. Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied HUD encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds to achieve greater results. Matches require subrecipients to produce a specific amount of funding that will “match” the amount of program funds available. • HOME Investment Partnership Program – Salt Lake City utilizes impact fee waivers to cover the HOME match requirement. • Emergency Solutions Grant – 100% Match Requirement Salt Lake City will ensure that ESG match requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its subrecipients. Funding sources used to meet the ESG match requirements include federal, state, and local grants; private contributions; private foundations; City General Fund; in-kind match; and unrestricted donations. Annual Action Plan 30 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Leveraged funding means other local, state, and federal financial resources used to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. Resources for leverage include the following: • Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers • Low Income Housing Tax Credits • New Market Tax Credits • RDA Development Funding • Salt Lake City Housing Development Loan Fund • Salt Lake City Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) • Salt Lake City General Fund • Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund • Industrial & Commercial Bank Funding • Continuum of Care Funding • Foundations & Other Philanthropic Partners Annual Action Plan 31 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Salt Lake City intends to expand affordable housing and economic development opportunities through the redevelopment of City-owned land, strategic land acquisitions, expansion of the Community Land Trust for affordable housing, parcel assembly, and disposition. The Housing Stability Division will work collaboratively with other City Divisions that oversee or control parcels that are owned by the City to evaluate the appropriateness for affordable housing opportunities. Discussion Salt Lake City will continue to seek other federal, state, and private funds to leverage entitlement grant funding. In addition, the City will support the proposed community development initiatives outlined in this Plan through strategic initiatives, policies, and programs. Annual Action Plan 32 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) AP-20 ANNUAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goals Summary Information The below table outlines the Consolidated Plan Goals and Objectives. Annual Action Plan 33 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Housing 2020 2024 Affordable Housing City Wide / MSA Affordable Housing $3,333,547 CDBG $98,508 ESG $1,921,295 HOME $877,256 HOPWA 378 – Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated 190 – Tenant-Based Rental Assistance / Rapid Rehousing 127 – Rental Units Rehabilitated 108 – HIV/AIDS Housing Operations 25 – Homelessness Prevention 8 – Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers 3 – Homeowner Housing Added 1 – Rental Units Constructed 2 Transportation 2020 2024 Transportation City Wide / West Side Target Area Transportation $0 N/A Annual Action Plan 34 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 3 Community Resiliency 2020 2024 Economic Development / Public Services City Wide / West Side Target Area Build Community Resiliency $1,119,973 CDBG 609 - Public Service Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit 20 – Façade Treatment/Business Building Rehabilitation 4 Homeless Services 2020 2024 Homeless City Wide Homeless Services $333,746 CDBG $181,860 ESG 1,652 - Homeless Person Overnight Shelter 687 – Public Service Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit 5 Behavioral Health 2020 2024 Public Services / Behavioral Health City Wide / MSA Behavioral Health Services $130,945 CDBG $107,600 HOPWA 668 - Public Service Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit 6 Administration 2020 2024 Administration City Wide N/A $679,552 CDBG $102,366 HOME $27,985 HOPWA $22,732 ESG N/A Table 2 – Goals Summary Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.215(b) Salt Lake City is estimating that 170 LMI households will be served under the HOME program, as defined by 91.215(b), through a combination of addition or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing, TBRA and Down Payment Assistance programs. Annual Action Plan 35 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) AP-35 PROJECTS – 91.220(D) Introduction The goals and strategies outlined in Salt Lake City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan serve as the foundation for program year 2023-2024 projects and activities. The Consolidated Plan also addresses the need to utilize federal funding to further support housing, building community resiliency, homeless services, and behavioral health. Salt Lake City did not receive any applications for the transportation Consolidated Plan goal. However, progress will still be made on this through older activities that will be completed in the 2023-24 year. The Consolidated Plan goals will be supported through the following 2023-2024 efforts: Projects # Project Name 1 CDBG: Public Services: Homeless Service Programs 2023-24 2 CDBG: Public Services: Build Community Resiliency 2023-24 3 CDBG: Public Services: Behavioral Health 2023-24 4 CDBG: Housing 2023-24 5 CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development 2023-24 6 CDBG: Administration 2023-24 7 ESG 2023-24 8 HOME: Tenant Based Rental Assistance 2023-24 9 HOME: Down Payment Assistance 2023-24 10 HOME: Development Activities 2023-24 11 HOME: Administration 2023-24 12 HOPWA 2023-2024 Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs Priorities include expanding affordable housing opportunities throughout the City, providing critical services for the City’s most vulnerable residents, expanding self-sufficiency for at-risk populations, and improving neighborhood conditions in concentrated areas of poverty. The City and partners are unable to fully address needs due to a lack of funding and resources. To address the lack of resources, the City will continue to engage with community development organizations, housing providers, housing developers, service providers, community councils, City departments, local businesses, residents, and other stakeholders to develop strategies for increasing impacts and meeting gaps in services. Annual Action Plan 36 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) AP-38 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Summary Information 1 Project: CDBG: Public Services: Homeless Service Programs 2023-24 Description: CDBG Public Services funding to support Homeless Services Consolidated Plan Goal Estimated Amount: $333,746 Expected Resources: $339,746 in CDBG funding Annual goals Supported: Homeless Services Priority Needs Addressed: Homeless Services Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City anticipates 1,649 low- to moderate-income individuals/families will be served with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $56,249 YWCA Utah – DV & Residential Services $30,489 South Valley Sanctuary – Domestic Violence Shelter $55,450 The Road Home – Homeless Resource Centers $41,090 Catholic Community Services – Weigand Center $50,000 The Road Home – Housing Staffing $50,776 The INN Between – Medical Respite and Hospice $49,692 Salt Lake Donated Dental – Community Donated Dental Project Goal Outcome Indicators: 993 - Homeless Person Overnight Shelter 656 - Public Service Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit 2 Project: CDBG: Public Services: Build Community Resiliency - Job Training & Educational Programs 2023-24 Annual Action Plan 37 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Description: CDBG Public Services funding to support Community Resiliency Consolidated Plan Goal Estimated Amount: $194,973 Expected Resources: $194,973 in CDBG funding Annual goals Supported: Community Resiliency Priority Needs Addressed: Build Community Resiliency Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City anticipates 609 low- to moderate-income individuals/families will be served with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $30,000 First Step House – Employment Preparation and Placement $43,995 Neighborhood House – Early Childhood Education $30,000 Legal Aid Society – Domestic Violence Victim Assistance $30,489 International Rescue Committee – Upward Mobility for Refugees $30,489 Wasatch Community Gardens – Green Team Job Training $30,000 Salt Lake American – Survival Services for Refugees Goal Outcome Indicators: 609 – Public Service Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit 3 Project: CDBG: Public Services: Behavioral Health 2023-24 Description: CDBG Public Services funding to support Behavioral Health Consolidated Plan Goal Estimated Amount: $130,945 Expected Resources: $130,945 in CDBG funding Annual goals Supported: Behavioral Health Priority Needs Addressed: Behavioral Health Services to Expand Opportunity Annual Action Plan 38 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City anticipates 582 low- to moderate-income individuals/families will be served with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $30,000 First Step House – Peer Support Services $40,456 Fourth Street Clinic – Health and Housing Transition Team $30,489 The Childrens Center Utah – Therapeutic Preschool $30,000 Odyssey House, Utah – Safety and Trauma Support Services Goal Outcome Indicators: 582 – Public Service Activities other than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit 4 Project: CDBG: Housing 2023-24 Description: CDBG funding for Housing Consolidated Plan Goal Estimated Amount: $3,333,547 Expected Resources: $3,333,547 in CDBG funding Annual goals Supported: Housing Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City anticipates 470 low- to moderate-income households to be served with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $926,766 ASSIST Inc. – Emergency Home Repair & Accessibility and Community Design $379,703 First Step House – Recovery Residence Improvements $462,389 ICAST – Trolley Lane Rehabilitation and Decarbonizing Annual Action Plan 39 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) $406,267 NeighborWorks Salt Lake – Salt Lake Housing Services $41,142 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – Small Repair Program $711,027 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – Rehabilitation and Targeted Repair Program $406,253 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – Shared Equity Program Goal Outcome Indicators: 89 – Rental Units Rehabilitated 3 – Homeowner Housing Added 378 – Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated 5 Project: CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development 2023-24 Description: CDBG funding to support the Community Resiliency Consolidated Plan Goal Estimated Amount: $925,000 Expected Resources: $925,000 in CDBG funding Annual goals Supported: Community Resiliency Priority Needs Addressed: Build Community Resiliency Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City anticipates serving 20 businesses with these funds. Location Description: West Side Target Area Planned Activities: $925,000 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – Neighborhood Business Improvement Program Goal Outcome Indicators: 20 - Facade Treatment/Business Building Rehabilitation 6 Project: CDBG: Administration 2023-24 Description: Salt Lake City CDBG Administration funding Estimated Amount: $679,552 Expected Resources: $679,552 in CDBG funding Annual Action Plan 40 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Annual goals Supported: Administration Priority Needs Addressed: Homeless Services Affordable Housing Build Community Resiliency Behavioral Health Services to Expand Opportunity Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: No families will directly benefit from these funds since they are for the administration of the CDBG program. Location Description: City Wide / West Side Target Area Planned Activities: $679,552 Salt Lake City Housing Stability - CDBG Administration Goal Outcome Indicators: N/A 7 Project: ESG 2023-24 Description: ESG funding to support the Homeless Services and Housing Consolidated Plan Goals Estimated Amount: $303,100 Expected Resources: $303,100 in ESG funding Annual goals Supported: Homeless Services Housing Administration Priority Needs Addressed: Homeless Services Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City estimates that 688 homeless individuals/families will be served with these funds. Annual Action Plan 41 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Location Description: City Wide / Salt Lake Continuum of Care Planned Activities: $50,000 Catholic Community Services – Weigand Homeless Resource Center $40,636 First Step House – Resource Center Program $30,408 Family Promise Salt Lake – Community-Based Family Shelter $30,408 Volunteers of America, Utah – Youth Resource Center $30,408 Volunteers of America, Utah – Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center $34,337 The Road Home – Rapid Re-Housing $32,318 Asian Association of Utah – Homeless Prevention $31,853 Utah Community Action – Diversion Program $22,732 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – ESG Administration Goal Outcome Indicators: 659 – Homeless Person Overnight Shelter 4 – Tenant-Based Rental Assistance / Rapid Rehousing 25 – Homelessness Prevention 8 Project: HOME: Tenant Based Rental Assistance 2023-24 Description: HOME funds for TBRA activities. Estimated Amount: $796,399 Expected Resources: $796,399 in HOME funding Annual goals Supported: Housing Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City estimates that 125 low- to moderate-income individuals/households will be served with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $138,431 South Valley Services – DV Survivor Housing Assistance Annual Action Plan 42 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) $99,372 Volunteers of America, Utah – YRC Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $208,757 Utah Community Action – Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $349,839 The Road Home – Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Goal Outcome Indicators: 125 - Tenant-Based Rental Assistance / Rapid Rehousing 9 Project: HOME: Financial Assistance to Homebuyers 2023-24 Description: HOME funds for direct financial assistance to homebuyer activities Estimated Amount: $563,026 Expected Resources: $563,026 Annual goals Supported: Housing Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City estimates that 8 low- to moderate- income households will be served with the funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $213,950 Community Development Corporation of Utah – Down Payment Assistance $349,076 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – Salt Lake City Homebuyer Program Goal Outcome Indicators: 8 – Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers 10 Project: HOME: Salt Lake City Home Development Fund 2023-24 Description: Funding, including the HOME CHDO Set-Aside, for eligible development activities. Estimated Amount: $561,870 Expected Resources: $561,870 Annual goals Supported: Housing Annual Action Plan 43 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City estimates that 38 low- to moderate-income households will benefit and 1 low-to moderate-income rental unit will be constructed with these funds. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $408,320 First Step House – Stratford Apartments $153,550 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – HOME CHDO Set-Aside Goal Outcome Indicators: 38 – Rental Units Rehabilitated 11 Project: HOME: Administration 2023-24 Description: Funding for the Administration of the HOME Investment Partnership Program. Estimated Amount: $102,366 Expected Resources: $102,366 in HOME funding Annual goals Supported: Administration Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: No families will directly benefit from these funds since they are for the administration of the HOME program. Location Description: City Wide Planned Activities: $102,366 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – HOME Administration Goal Outcome Indicators: N/A 12 Project: HOPWA23: Salt Lake City Description: Funding for eligible activities under the Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) program. Annual Action Plan 44 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Estimated Amount: $1,012,841 Expected Resources: $1,012,841 in HOPWA funding Annual goals Supported: Housing Behavioral Health Administration Priority Needs Addressed: Affordable Housing Behavioral Health Services to Expand Opportunities Target Date for Completion: 6/30/2024 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Salt Lake City estimates that 255 low- to-moderate individuals/families with HIV/AIDS will benefit from these funds. Location Description: Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Planned Activities: $75,319 Utah AIDS Foundation – Supportive Services Program $107,600 Utah AIDS Foundation – Mental Health Services $626,102 Housing Connect – Tenant Based Rental Assistance $172,835 Utah Community Action – STRMU/PHP/Supportive Services $27,985 Salt Lake City Housing Stability – HOPWA Administration Goal Outcome Indicators: 108 – HIV/AIDS Housing Operations 61 - Tenant-Based Rental Assistance / Rapid Rehousing 86 - Public Service Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit AP-50 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION – 91.220(F) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Locally defined target areas provide an opportunity to maximize impact and align HUD funding with existing investment while simultaneously addressing neighborhoods with the most severe needs. Annual Action Plan 45 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) According to HUD standards, a Local Target Area is designed to allow for a locally targeted approach to the investment of CDBG and other federal funds. The target area for the entirety of the associated Consolidated Plan period, will be identified as, “West Side Target Area”, as shown on the map below. CDBG and other federal funding will be concentrated, but not necessarily limited to, the target area. Neighborhood and community nodes will be identified and targeted to maximize community impact and drive further neighborhood investment. During this Annual Action Plan period, infrastructure projects such as transportation projects and commercial façade improvements will be limited to this target area. Housing activities will happen city wide, however, a more concentrated marketing strategy for rehabilitation efforts will be deployed in the West Side Target Area as an opportunity to expand housing stability. SLC also uses the most current ACS Summary Data from HUD to determine eligible areas for LMA activities. Annual Action Plan 46 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds CDBG Eligible Areas 0% City Wide 64% Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 5% West Side Target Area 31% Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, suitable living environments and expanded economic activities to persons of low- and moderate-income. To support the CDBG program’s primary objectives, Salt Lake City is taking a two-pronged approach to the distribution of funding: Direct funding to local target areas to build capacity and expand resources within concentrated areas of poverty. Utilize funding city wide, in accordance with meeting a national objective, to support the city’s most vulnerable populations. This includes the chronically homeless, homeless families, food-insecure individuals, persons with disabilities, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low-income elderly. The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. ESG funding is distributed within the Salt Lake Continuum of Care to support emergency shelter, day services, resource centers, rapid re-housing, and homeless prevention activities. The Salt Lake Continuum of Care spans the entirety of Salt Lake County. The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for low-income households. HOME funding is distributed city wide to provide direct financial assistance to homebuyers, tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabilitation. The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. HOPWA funding is distributed throughout the Salt Lake City MSA, which is comprised of two counties, Salt Lake and Tooele, to provide project-based rental assistance, tenant-based rental assistance, short-term rental assistance, and supportive services. Annual Action Plan 47 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) The majority of funding is utilized in Salt Lake County, as most HIV/AIDS services are located in the Salt Lake area. The Target Area was identified through an extensive process that analyzed local poverty rates, low-and moderate-income rates, neighborhood conditions, citizen input, and available resources. Salt Lake City allows service providers to utilize their funds according to governing regulations of the grants. CDBG and HOME funds can be used city wide. Salt Lake City did not receive any LMA applications this year, which are limited to CDBG Eligible Areas. ESG funds can be used within the Salt Lake CoC and HOPWA funds can be used in the Salt Lake MSA. Discussion The City’s west side and central corridor areas continue to have economic disparities that can be addressed through investments of CDBG and other funding. While not limited to the target area, housing rehabilitation and other services will be heavily marketed in the target area. Throughout this plan period and beyond, the City will leverage and strategically target funding for neighborhood improvements, transportation improvements, and economic development to maximize impact within targeted neighborhoods. AP-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 91.220(G) Introduction The Salt Lake City’s Housing Stability Division is committed to lessening the current housing crisis that is affecting Salt Lake City, as in all U.S. cities, through a range of robust policy and project initiatives to improve housing affordability for all residents, with an emphasis on households earning 40% AMI or below. One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 29 Non-Homeless 275 Special-Needs 420 Total 724 Annual Action Plan 48 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 215 The Production of New Units 1 Rehab of Existing Units 505 Acquisition of Existing Units 3 Total 724 Discussion Salt Lake City utilizes a data-driven strategy for ensuring long-term affordability and preservation, while balancing the unique need of the City’s neighborhoods. The City will support affordable housing activities through use of all four CPD grant programs: CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA. Activities will be targeted to individuals and families from 0-80% AMI and will include: • Tenant-based rental assistance • Short-term rental/utility assistance • Rapid re-housing • Rental housing rehabilitation • Homeowner housing rehabilitation and • Direct financial assistance for eligible homebuyers. An analysis of Salt Lake City’s homebuyer market demonstrates a reasonable range of low-income households will continue to qualify for mortgage financing assistance: • US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2021: o The median home value was $380,200. o The median household income was $65,880. • HUD, HOME Income Guidelines for 2022, Salt Lake City Metro Area, 80% AMI for a family of 4: $81,900 • ACS data, Salt Lake City, 2022: o The percentage of households under the poverty line: 14.7% of total population o The median monthly owner costs with a mortgage, $1,739 • According to UtahRealEstate.com, the median home price in Salt Lake City in April 2023 was $570,000 with an average price of $666,718. Between July 2022 to March 2023, 35 Salt Lake City homes sold for between $100,000-$299,999. Annual Action Plan 49 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) AP-60 PUBLIC HOUSING – 91.220(H) Introduction The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) is responsible for managing the public housing inventory, developing new affordable housing units and administering the Housing Choice voucher programs for the City. The Authority strives to provide affordable housing opportunities throughout the community by developing new or rehabilitating existing housing that is safe, decent, and affordable – a place where a person’s income level or background cannot be identified by the neighborhood in which they live. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) is responsible for managing the public housing inventory, developing new affordable housing units, and administering the Housing Choice voucher programs for the City. HASLC strives to provide affordable housing opportunities throughout the community by developing new or rehabilitating existing housing that is safe, decent, and affordable – a place where a person’s income level or background cannot be identified by the neighborhood in which they live. As an administrator of the City’s Housing Choice voucher programs, the Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental assistance to low-income families (50% of area median income and below). This program provides rental subsidies to 2,777 low-income families, disabled, elderly, and chronically homeless clients through this and other voucher programs. 1,518 of these vouchers are located within Salt Lake City municipal boundaries. Other programs under the Housing Choice umbrella include Housing Choice Moderate Rehabilitation; Housing Choice New Construction; Project Based Vouchers; Multifamily Project Based Vouchers; Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers; and Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS. Under these other Housing Choice programs, the HASLC provided rental subsidies to additional qualified program participants. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing HASLC has goals that include an increased focus on assisting local leaders and agencies respond to homelessness in the City, as well as developing and attaining more capacity for additional living units through real estate activities, rehabilitation, pursuing new SRO projects, developing increased relationships and services targeting and attracting landlords. HASLC also utilizes HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) to preserve and improve their many properties. HASLC continues to look for ways Annual Action Plan 50 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) to expand their portfolio by identifying challenging properties and continuing to develop catalytic and transformative projects and programming. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership Both HASLC and Housing Connect, previously Salt Lake County Housing Authority, have active monthly tenant meetings and encourage participation in management decisions related to the specific housing communities. Housing Connect has a Resident Advisory Board that has representatives from public housing, Section 8, and special needs programs. A member of the Resident Advisory Board is appointed to the Housing Connect’s Board of Commissioners. HASLC operates Family Self-Sufficiency programs that address areas of improving personal finances and homeownership preparation for voucher recipients. If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Housing Connect and HASLC are both designated as high performers. Discussion Public housing is a vital tool for Salt Lake City’s goal of affordable housing and ending homelessness. The City will continue to work with the Housing Authorities and other partners in this area. AP-65 HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL N EEDS ACTIVITIES – 91.220(I) Introduction Salt Lake City works with a large homeless services community to reduce the number of persons experiencing homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals experience homelessness, increase successful transitions out of homelessness, and reduce the number of instances that clients may return to homelessness. Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Salt Lake County Continuum of Care’s (CoC) executive board and its prioritization committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care’s priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocations. The three local ESG funders also meet regularly to coordinate ESG and CoC activities to ensure an accurate level of funding is provided to match the community’s service needs and goals. Additionally, the City participates in Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and the State Homelessness Coordinating Committee to further coordinate efforts. Annual Action Plan 51 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) The Salt Lake County CoC contracts with the State of Utah to administer the Utah Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). All service agencies in the region and the rest of the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Representatives from Salt Lake City sit on the HMIS Steering Committee. HMIS data allows Salt Lake City and its partners to track the effectiveness of programs and gauge the continuing service needs of the community. The State of Utah, in coordination with local service providers and volunteers, conducts an annual Point- In-Time count at the end of January to count sheltered (emergency shelter and transitional housing) and unsheltered homeless individuals. Unsheltered homeless individuals are counted by canvassing volunteers. The volunteers use the VI-SPDAT assessment tool to interview and try to connect unsheltered homeless individuals into services. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Salt Lake City’s primary homeless services goal is to help homeless individuals and families get off the street and into permanent housing. In the short term, Salt Lake City will continue to provide collaborative services to the homeless population. Personalized and persistent one-on-one outreach to homeless individuals providing information about the specific services that individual needs (e.g., housing, mental health treatment, a hot meal) is the most effective outreach approach. Salt Lake City works regularly with various community partners that provide outreach and assessment of individuals experiencing homelessness including Catholic Community Services, Volunteers of America, the Department of Veterans Affairs, The Road Home, and others. Housing Stability’s Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART) coordinates a wide array of efforts designed to engage and meet the needs of unsheltered persons residing in Salt Lake City. These efforts include regularly scheduled resource fairs that bring service providers directly to areas where unsheltered individuals are residing. Annual Action Plan 52 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Salt Lake City provided paper surveys to the Homeless Resource Centers as part of the engagement efforts. Housing Stability Staff also attended a homeless resource fair that was coordinated by the HEART Team. See the attached Engagement Report for additional details. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Most efforts to deal with homelessness in Utah rely on the Housing First model. The premise of Housing First is that once homeless individuals have housing, they are more likely to seek and continue receiving services and can search for employment. The Housing First model has been effective in Salt Lake City, though meeting the varied housing needs of this population can be challenging. The homeless housing market needs more permanent supportive housing, housing vouchers, affordable non-supportive housing, and housing located near transit and services. Salt Lake City is continuing to work to meet the needs of all persons experiencing homelessness, including with CDBG, ESG, and HOPWA funds. There is a continued need for day services to meet the basic needs of persons experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City addresses these issues by supporting homeless resource centers, day services, and providing a free storage program. These centers also provide essential services to the homeless population, including food, storage, case management and behavioral health services. Our goal is that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Salt Lake City will continue aiming to assist homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing, including shortening the period that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again Salt Lake City and its service partners work with homeless individuals to help them successfully transition from living on the streets or shelters and into permanent housing or independent living. Salt Lake City has been working with service partners and other governmental agencies through the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH). This includes work on various subgroups that focus on specific areas of service, including housing and coordinated entry. Salt Lake City has the goal to help Annual Action Plan 53 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) streamline service delivery to the homeless community with the express purpose of shortening the period that individuals and families experience homelessness. Salt Lake City has also funded the creation of new permanent supportive housing units and programs which serve the most vulnerable members of our community. Progress is being made on both goals. Through the City’s Funding Our Future efforts, the City has funded a variety of housing programs that aim to fill in gaps in services in our community. These programs include a shared housing program and housing programs which target families with children, individuals with substance abuse disorders, refugees, and victims of domestic violence. Salt Lake City also received approval from HUD for its HOME ARP Allocation Plan on May 11, 2023. This plan includes over $1.5 million for the development of new affordable housing units targeted towards persons and families experiencing homelessness. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs. Salt Lake City, along with other organizations in the Salt Lake County Continuum of Care, works to prevent and divert individuals and families from experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah all provide funding to Utah Community Action for short-term rental assistance to families at risk of falling into homelessness. Utah Community Action also conducts Diversion at all the Homeless Resource Centers and the Weigand Day Center for homeless individuals, which is partially funded by Salt Lake City ESG Homelessness Prevention funds. Housing Stability has also created a new staff position that will be focused on providing tenant support and legal rights information to reduce evictions, which can often lead to homelessness and become a barrier to obtaining new housing. This position was filled in April 2023. The Salt Lake Coalition to End Homelessness, along with Salt Lake City, coordinates regularly with health care facilities, mental health facilities, and other institutions to ensure that those exiting those facilities have access to resources to help prevent homelessness. Annual Action Plan 54 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Discussion Salt Lake City is reducing and ending homelessness in the community through strong collaborations with partner organizations throughout the Salt Lake County Continuum of Care. Salt Lake City works closely with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and service providers to stop families from entering homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals and families experience homelessness, help individuals and families successfully transition out of homelessness, and keep individuals and families from rescinding back into homelessness. Increased housing and rental costs continue to be a challenge for these efforts, but the City and its partners are working diligently with the limited funding available to make strides towards making homelessness rare, brief, and nonrecurring. AP-70 HOPWA GOALS– 91.220 (L)(3) One-year goals for the number of households to be provided housing through the use of HOPWA for: Short-term Rent, Mortgage, and Utility Assistance Payments: 38 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: 61 Units Provided in Permanent Housing Facilities Developed, Leased, or Operated with HOPWA Funds: 0 Units provided in Transitional Short-Term Housing Facilities Developed, Leased, or Operated with HOPWA Funds: 0 TOTAL: 99 AP-75 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 91.220(J) Introduction: As discussed in sections MA-40 and SP-55 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, several barriers to the development and preservation of affordable housing exist within Salt Lake City, including the following: • Land costs • Construction costs • Housing and transportation costs • Development and rehabilitation financing • Housing rehabilitation complexities • Foreclosures and loan modifications • Neighborhood market conditions Annual Action Plan 55 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • Economic conditions • Land use regulations • Development fees and assessments • Permit processing procedures • Environmental review procedures • Lack of zoning and development incentives • Complicated impact fee waiver process • Competition for limited development incentives • Landlord tenant policies • "NIMBYism” While not all of these barriers can be addressed with federal funding, during the 2023-2024 program year, the City will work to reduce barriers to affordable housing through the following planning efforts and initiatives: • Development of a new 5-year housing plan, Housing SLC. • The creation of an anti-displacement plan, Thriving in Place. • Working to affirmatively further fair housing with the help of partner agencies such as the Disability Law Center. • Work collaboratively with service providers and the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness, to improve and strengthen our homelessness response system. • Continue to provide affordable home ownership opportunities through federal and nonfederal funding sources. • Leverage City-owned land in the creation of new affordable housing • Coordinate with the Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency and their efforts to increase affordable housing. • More responsive zoning policies that help meet the needs of a growing City and a difficult housing market. Annual Action Plan 56 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment Salt Lake City will work to remove or ameliorate public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing through the following efforts: • Affordable Housing Development Incentives: Zoning and fee waiver incentives will be implemented and/or strengthened, including the following: o Review the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance to ensure that the city’s stock of inexpensive housing isn’t rapidly being replaced by more expensive units. o An Affordable Housing Overlay zone that allows for and provides incentives for the creation and preservation of affordable housing. o A Single Room Occupancy (SRO)/Shared Housing ordinance that allows for SROs in neighborhoods throughout the City. o Off-Street Parking Ordinance update to improve pedestrian-scale development and amenities. o Low-Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning amendments to remove local zoning barriers to housing density and types of housing. o ADU ordinance to allow for the creation of additional units in single family neighborhoods. • Leverage Public Resources for Affordable Housing Development: Public resources, including city- owned land, will be leveraged with private resources for affordable housing development. • Funding Targeting: The Housing Stability Division is evaluating ways to coordinate and target affordable housing subsidies more effectively, to include the coordination of local funding sources (Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City Housing Development Loan Fund, Salt Lake County funding, etc.). • Implement Fair Housing Action Items: Salt Lake City will work to remove and/or ameliorate housing impediments for protected classes through action items as identified in the City’s Fair Housing Action Plan as outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Annual Action Plan 57 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • Utilize CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funding to expand housing opportunity through homeowner rehabilitation, emergency home repair, acquisition/rehabilitation, direct financial assistance, tenant-based rental assistance, project-based rental assistance, and rapid re- housing. Discussion: Housing Stability, other city divisions, and policy makers will continue to work towards removing or ameliorating the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing. AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS – 91.220(K) Introduction: This section outlines Salt Lake City’s efforts to carry out the following: • Address obstacles to meeting underserved needs • Foster and maintain affordable housing • Reduce lead-based paint hazards • Reduce the number of poverty-level families • Develop institutional structure • Enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies • Radon Mitigation Policy Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The most substantial impediment in meeting underserved needs is a lack of funding and resources. Strategic shifts identified through Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan provide a framework for maximizing and leveraging the City's block grant allocations on underserved needs. Underserved needs and strategic actions are as follows: Underserved Need: Affordable housing • Actions: Salt Lake City is utilizing federal and local resources to expand both rental and homeownership opportunities. In addition, the City is utilizing public land to leverage private capital for the development of affordable housing. These efforts will work to address the affordable housing gap in Salt Lake City. Annual Action Plan 58 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Underserved Need: Homelessness • Actions: Salt Lake City is working with housing and homeless service providers to coordinate and streamline processes for service delivery. The State of Utah and Utah Homeless Management Information System are working to create a screening survey for prioritization of vulnerable and homeless individuals. These efforts will assist in addressing unmet needs by utilizing resources more effectively. Underserved Need: Special needs individuals. • Actions: Salt Lake City is working to address underserved needs for refugees, immigrants, the elderly, victims of domestic violence, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and persons with a disability by providing resources for basic needs, as well as resources to expand self-sufficiency. For example, federal funding is utilized to provide early childhood education for refugees and other at-risk children; create accessibility improvements for elderly or disabled residents; improve immediate and long-term outcomes for persons living with HIV/AIDS; provide job training for vulnerable populations; and provide medical services for at risk populations. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City is committed to fostering and maintaining affordable housing throughout our City. This is evident through identifying specific gaps that exist in the community, and then designing affordable housing efforts specifically to address these needs. The City aims to target households earning 80% AMI and below, with emphasis on households earning 40% AMI and below. Through the housing initiatives and efforts identified in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City aims to: • Address the City’s affordable housing shortage for those most in need. • Address housing needs for Salt Lake City’s changing demographics. • Address neighborhood specific needs, including the following: o Protect affordability in neighborhoods where affordability is disappearing. o Promote affordability in neighborhoods with a lack of affordable housing. • Preserve the City’s existing affordable housing stock. • Strengthen the City’s relationship with our housing partners, financial institutions, and foundations. Annual Action Plan 59 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • Support those who develop and advocate for affordable housing. Toward this end, Salt Lake City will foster and maintain affordable housing during the 2023-2024 program year through the following actions: • Utilize CDBG funding to support owner-occupied rehabilitation for households at 80% AMI and below. • Utilize CDBG and HOME funding for acquisition and rehabilitation of dilapidated and blighted housing. • Utilize ESG, HOME, and HOPWA funding to create housing opportunities for individuals and households at 30% AMI and below through Tenant-Based Rental Assistance and Rapid Re- Housing. • Utilize CDBG and HOME funding for direct financial assistance to homebuyers at 80% AMI and below. • Promote the development of affordable housing with low-income housing tax credits, Salt Lake City Housing Development Loan Fund, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City’s HOME Development Fund and other funding sources. • Leverage public resources, including publicly owned land, with private capital for the development of affordable housing. • Work to ameliorate and/or eliminate housing impediments for protected classes as outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan’s Fair Housing Action Plan. • Work to leverage other city resources such as Redevelopment Agency funding/strategies, maximize sales tax housing funding, and other sources as they are identified with federal funding where applicable. • Salt Lake City launched a Community Land Trust that currently has sixteen properties, with plans to increase the number of properties in the next program year. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards Because of the high percentage of the housing units in Salt Lake City that were built before 1978, outreach and education efforts must continue. As such, the City has implemented a plan to address lead issues in our residential rehabilitation projects. The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program is in- Annual Action Plan 60 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) compliance with HUD’s rules concerning identification and treatment of lead hazards. During the 2023- 2024 program year, the City will work in conjunction with our partners on the state and county levels to educate the public on the dangers posed by lead based paint, to include the following: • Undertake outreach efforts through direct mailings, the City website, various fairs and public events, and the local community councils. • Provide materials in Spanish to increase lead-based paint hazard awareness in minority communities. • Partner with Salt Lake County’s Lead Safe Salt Lake program to treat lead hazards in the homes of children identified as having elevated blood levels. • Emphasize lead hazards in our initial contacts with homeowners needing rehabilitation. • Work with community partners to encourage local contractors to obtain worker certifications for their employees and sub-contractors. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families In a strategic effort to reduce the number of households living in poverty and prevent households at risk of moving towards poverty from doing so, the City is focusing on a two-pronged approach: 1. Creating neighborhoods of opportunity to build capacity and expand resources within concentrated areas of poverty. 2. Support the city’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, food-insecure individuals, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low-income elderly. The City’s anti-poverty strategy aims to close the gap in several socioeconomic indicators, such as improving housing affordability, school-readiness of young children, employment skills of at-risk adults, access to transportation for low-income households, and access to fresh foods for food-insecure families. Efforts will focus on the following objectives: • Assist low-income individuals to maximize their incomes. • Reduce the linkages between poor health and poverty. • Expand housing opportunities. Annual Action Plan 61 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • Reduce the impacts of poverty on children. • Ensure that vulnerable populations have access to supportive services. Federal entitlement funds allocated through this 2023-2024 Action Plan will support the City’s anti- poverty strategy through the following efforts: • Provide job training for vulnerable populations. • Provide early childhood education to limit the effects of intergenerational poverty. • Provide essential supportive services for vulnerable populations. • Provide housing rehabilitation for low-income homeowners. • Expanded affordable housing opportunities. • Improved neighborhood and commercial infrastructure in West Side Target Area. • Enhance support for small businesses and micro-enterprise businesses. • Reduce food insecurities for low-income households. Actions planned to develop institutional structure As outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City is building upon the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and continuing to take a coordinated and strategic shift in allocating federal entitlement funds to place a stronger emphasis on community needs, goals, objectives, and outcomes. This includes the following efforts to strengthen and develop institutional structure: • Geographically target infrastructure and economic development funding to areas of the city with higher poverty rates, lower incomes, and/or reduced access to transportation. • Increase coordination between housing and supportive service providers to reduce/eliminate duplicative efforts, encourage partnerships, increase transparency, and standardize processes. • Strengthen support for the City’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, individuals with disabilities, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low-income elderly. • Support housing efforts that connect residents with supportive services and programs that improve self-sufficiency. Annual Action Plan 62 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • Offer technical assistance to agencies implementing projects with CDBG, ESG, HOME, and/or HOPWA funding to ensure compliance and support of program objectives. • Support employee training and certifications to expand the internal knowledge base on HUD programs, as well as housing and community development best practices. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies Salt Lake City recognizes the importance of coordination between supportive service and housing providers in meeting priority needs. Stakeholders have been working towards developing and implementing a streamlined and effective delivery system to include the following efforts: • Created and implemented a no wrong door approach to accessing housing and other services. • Increased coordination through the Salt Lake County’s Continuum of Care, Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness, the Utah Homeless Management Information System, and State Homeless Coordinating Council. • Coordinated assessments to help individuals and families experiencing homeless move through the system faster. • Coordinated diversion and homeless prevention resources to reduce new entries into homelessness. • Coordinated efforts to house the highest users of the homeless services and provide trauma informed case management. • Improved weekly “housing triage” meetings that provide a format for developing a housing plan for homeless individuals and families with the most urgent housing needs. Discussion: Salt Lake City will continue to work on the above and other efforts to improve the health, safety, stability, prosperity, and opportunities for its residents. AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS – 91.220(L)(1,2,4) Introduction: Salt Lake City’s program specific requirements for CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA are outlined as follows. Annual Action Plan 63 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $0 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan $0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. $0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities $0 Total Program Income $0 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities $0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income 90% HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2) A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as follows: Salt Lake City does not utilize HOME funding beyond those identified in Section 92.205. Subrecipients for HOME funded projects are selected in the same manner as the other CPD grants. Competitive applications are given an administrative score and scored by a resident advisory board. The board makes funding recommendations that are sent to the mayor, and then the Council, who finalize the award decisions. During this process there are two public hearings that are conducted, one in the fall and another in the spring at a public City Council meeting. Additional public feedback is also gathered throughout the year through surveys and at public events. This process is outlined in further detail in Appendix C Citizen Participation Plan in the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and AP-12 Participation of this Action Plan. Annual Action Plan 64 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows: When Salt Lake City awards HOME funds for homebuyer activities, the following will apply if a sale or transfer of the property is made during the period of affordability: 1) Recapture provisions will apply when a homebuyer or subrecipient receives direct HOME assistance to purchase the affordable home (i.e., for a downpayment, closing costs, or other HOME assistance). 2) Resale provisions will apply when HOME assistance is provided for development subsidies, acquisition of existing units by housing organizations, and homes placed in community land trusts. Definitions DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY: A development subsidy is generally financial assistance given to the developer, who can then offer the home at a lower sales price and reduce the homebuyer’s housing costs. While the subsidy does not go directly to the homebuyer, it helps make development of an affordable home feasible. DIRECT HOMEBUYER SUBSIDY: A direct subsidy consists of any financial assistance that reduces the purchase price from fair market value to an affordable price, or otherwise directly subsidizes the purchase (i.e., downpayment or closing cost assistance, subordinate financing). HOMEBUYER INVESTMENT: The homebuyer’s investment consists of the portion of initial downpayment paid by the homebuyer combined with the value of any capital improvements made with the homebuyer’s funds, and any loan principal paid down during the homebuyer’s period of ownership. NET PROCEEDS: The sales price minus loan repayment (other than HOME funds) and closing costs. Under no circumstances can the City recapture more than is available from the net proceeds of the sale (i.e., voluntary sales including short sales, and involuntary sales including foreclosures). NONCOMPLIANCE: Failure to comply with the resale or recapture requirements means that: The HOME-assisted homebuyer no longer occupies the unit as their principal residence (i.e., unit is rented or vacant); or the home is voluntarily or involuntarily transferred in a transaction changing ownership without proper notice and the appropriate provisions were not enforced. Annual Action Plan 65 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) PERIOD OF AFFORDABILITY: The number of years that resale and recapture policies will be in effect when HOME funds are used. The minimum number of years is determined by the amount of the investment. HOME Funds Provided for Homebuyer Activity subject to Recapture of HOME Funds Minimum years of Affordability Under $15,000 5 Years Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 Years Over $40,000 15 Years SUBRECIPIENT: A subrecipient is a public or private nonprofit agency, authority, or organization that receives HOME funds to undertake eligible HOME activities (e.g., provide downpayment or closing costs assistance, or homeowner rehabilitation). RECAPTURE PROVISIONS Used when HOME assistance is provided to a homebuyer purchasing a regular market home. Homebuyers/subrecipients who are awarded HOME funds for direct homebuyer assistance (downpayment assistance, closing costs, interest subsidies, or other HOME assistance) must follow the recapture guidelines if the property is sold or transferred during the affordability period. Depending on the level of homebuyer assistance provided, the affordability period may be five years (less than $15,000 in direct assistance), ten years ($15,000 or more but less than $40,000), or fifteen years ($40,000 or more). When the home is sold or transferred during the period of affordability, the homebuyer/subrecipient must repay the City the full amount of HOME funds received through downpayment assistance, closing costs, or other HOME assistance provided directly to them, and any financial assistance that reduced the purchase price from fair market value to an affordable price. Example The City provides $75,000 in HOME development funds to a developer who sells the property for fair market value at $60,000. The homebuyer is also provided HOME down payment Annual Action Plan 66 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) assistance in the amount of $5,000. The City uses the recapture option to ensure affordability. The period of affordability for this property is five years because the property was sold for fair market value and the direct assistance to the homebuyer is therefore $5,000. Alternately, if the fair market value of this same property was $75,000, and the developer sold the property to the homebuyer for $60,000, the period of affordability would be ten years because the assistance that enables the homebuyer to purchase the unit is $20,000 ($15,000 subsidy to write down the purchase price plus the $5,000 down payment assistance). The HOME-assisted homebuyer is allowed to sell the home to any willing buyer at any price as long as the HOME debt remaining on the property is repaid. If the net sales proceeds are inadequate to fully repay the City’s HOME loan, the City accepts the net proceeds as full and final payoff of the note. The City is never permitted to recapture more than is available from net proceeds of the sale (i.e., voluntary sales including short sales, and involuntary sales including foreclosures). The net proceeds of a sale are the sales price minus non-HOME loan repayments and any closing costs. When the net sales proceeds exceed the City assistance, the HOME-assisted homebuyer retains all remaining net proceeds after repaying the HOME loan balance. The City reserves the right to determine that the sales price reflects fair market value. If the City receives payment, the City for other HOME-eligible activities. Or the City may agree to a written agreement that specifies that the subrecipient keeps the recaptured funds for use for other HOME-eligible activities. Any time recaptured funds are reused to assist a subsequent homebuyer, a new period of affordability will start. Lien documents, deed restrictions, covenants that run with the land, or other similar mechanisms will be used to impose recapture provisions. Documents containing these provisions will be executed at the closing of the home purchase and will be recorded at that time. In addition, the City will execute a written agreement between the homebuyer and the City, which will clearly explain: amount and use of the loan; length of the affordability period based on the dollar amount of City funds invested; • requirement that the property be the primary residence of the household throughout the period of affordability; • recapture provisions based on net proceeds available from sale, transfer or foreclosure of the home. Annual Action Plan 67 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) Only those grantee users with administrative privileges can edit grantee program contact information. Users with these privileges will see an additional “Admin” module in the blue, top bar. Each organization is required to list a first contract, and is encouraged to list a second contact if possible, for each of the CPD programs where the organization is the direct recipient of HUD funding. To edit program contact information, the Local Grantee Administrator should: 1. Click the Grantee/PJ tab to display the View Grantee screen. On the navigation bar (left-hand side of the screen), click on the “Edit Contacts” link. 2. The “Chief Elected Official” section and each program area has a set of links including “Update,” New,” and “Change to Another.” Select “Update” to edit the information for the existing program contact and select “New” to add a new program contact. The “Change to Another” link can be used to search for and select a different contact as the new program contact. In order to preserve the number of affordable housing units for continued benefit to low-income residents, Salt Lake City requires that HOME funds used to assist homeownership be recaptured whenever assisted units become vacant prior to the end of the affordability period that is commensurate with the amount of funding invested in the activity. Trust deeds or property restrictions are filed on appropriate properties to ensure compliance with the period of affordability. Homeownership Resale: When HOME funding is provided directly to a developer to reduce development costs, thereby making the price of the home affordable to the homebuyer, the funds are not repaid by the developer to the City but remain with the property for the length of the affordability period. This keeps HOME-assisted units affordable over the entire affordability period. Under the resale option, if the homeowner decides to sell the home during the period of affordability: Annual Action Plan 68 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • The sale price must be affordable to a range of subsequent low-income owner-occupied households. • Subsequent homebuyers must be income-qualified under the HOME program and must occupy the home as their principal residence. • The homeowner must be provided a fair return on investment when applicable (i.e., the downpayment plus capital improvements made to the house), while ensuring that the home is sold to another income qualified household. o In some cases, it may be necessary for the City to provide HOME assistance to the subsequent homeowner to ensure that the original homeowner receives a fair return and the unit is affordable to the defined low-income population. The resale price cannot be set based upon what is affordable to a specific homebuyer. FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT. The homeowner may receive the money they invested into the property back from the sale proceeds. The value of the homeowner investment is calculated by adding: • The homeowner’s investment (i.e. downpayment and/or closing costs) at the time of initial purchase, • The principal paid on the senior debt during the period of ownership, and • Capital improvements (any individual improvements made specifically to the structure or major system of the HOME assisted housing unit in which the cost was more than $3,000.00 and where applicable, the work was properly permitted, inspected locally, and documented with third party receipts). The homeowner’s fair return on investment is measured using: • A formula that allows 1.5% annum simple interest for the number of years of ownership -OR- (whichever is the lessor of the two calculations) • The Consumer Price index, calculated from the month and year of purchase of the home to the month and year of the Intent-to-Sell Notice or other event triggering the Resale Option. The calculation shall be derived from the Bureau of Labor statistics online calculator or any successor: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl Annual Action Plan 69 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) The total return at sale, assuming the price at sale permits the homeowner to realize a full return on the investment, would be the lesser of the two calculations. Note: that in certain circumstances, such as a declining housing market where home values are depreciating, the homeowner may not receive a return on their investment because the home sold for less or the same price as the original purchase price. RESALE PROCESS: When a Resale is triggered during the Period of Affordability, the HOME-assisted homeowner must notify the City in writing no less than 60 days prior to such sell or transfer -to- . In order to ensure that all resale requirements are met, the City will • agree to the new sale price with consultation from the contracted agency and written third party appraisal. • confirm the Fair Return calculation to the HOME-assisted homeowner, and equity amounts to the homeowner, developer and the City. • review the income eligibility of the subsequent homebuyer. o Subsequent homebuyer must be low-income as defined by HOME o Sales price must be affordable to the subsequent homebuyer; affordable is defined as limiting the Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance (PITI) amount to no more than 30% of the subsequent homebuyer’s gross monthly income. • ensure the subsequent homebuyer will use the property as their principal residence. • determine whether the subsequent homebuyer will continue the Period of Affordability in effect. HOME PROGRAM QUALIFIED. Once the City determines that all resale process requirements are met, a written agreement will be executed between the subsequent homebuyer and the City, which will clearly explain: • amount and use of the loan; • length of the affordability period based on the dollar amount of City funds invested; • requirement that the property be the primary residence of the household throughout the period of affordability; Annual Action Plan 70 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) • conditions and obligations of the subsequent homebuyer should they wish to sell before the end of the affordability period. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows: See the below table for the affordability period for HOME funding projects. Rental Housing Activity Minimum years of Affordability Rehab or acquisition of existing housing per unit amount of HOME funds under $15,000 5 Years Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 Years Over $40,000 or rehab involving refinancing 15 Years New construction or acquisition of newly constructed housing 20 Years CONTINUED AFFORDABILITY. To provide continued affordability of the property, the City will ensure that the sales price not exceed what is affordable to households below 80% of area median income (AMI). The City defines “affordable price” as a price that is at or below an amount that will allow a low- income family to pay no more than 30% of their monthly income to pay for mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, and insurance. In no case will the price exceed the HOME Program purchase price limits as defined by HUD. ENFORCEMENT OF RESALE PROVISIONS. The HOME-assisted homeowner will be responsible for notifying the City to ensure that resale provisions are followed if properties are sold or transferred during the period of affordability. To accomplish this, lien documents, deed restrictions, covenants running with the land, or other similar mechanisms will be used to guarantee the period of affordability. Documents containing these provisions will be executed at the closing of the home purchase and will be recorded at that time. REPAYMENT Annual Action Plan 71 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) If homebuyer violates compliance requirements during the period of affordability, the City may enforce a Repayment provision in which homebuyer is responsible for repaying to the City the entire HOME investment. The HOME Resale and Recapture policies are intended to implement the HUD HOME program requirements concerning resale, recapture and repayment. In the event there is ambiguity in this policy, or in the event this policy does not address a specific question, the City will look to HUD regulations, guidance documents, and program notices as persuasive authority on such questions. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows: Not applicable. Salt Lake City does not intend to use HOME funds to refinance multifamily housing debt. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Reference 91.220(l)(4) Include written standards for providing ESG assistance (may include as attachment) The Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Policies include written standards for providing ESG assistance. Salt Lake City’s updated ESG policies and procedures are attached to this Annual Action Plan. If the Continuum of Care has established centralized or coordinated assessment system that meets HUD requirements, describe that centralized or coordinated assessment system. The Salt Lake Continuum of Care has developed a collaborative, written coordinated assessment plan. Consensus exists for a coordinated assessment plan that covers the entire Continuum of Care with a multi-access entry point quick assessment method for any homeless individual or family in need of emergency shelter or service. Our 2-1-1 system, service providers, government agencies, and others publicize all existing access points, as well as a central phone number that assists those who express a housing related emergency. The phone number is staffed by Utah Community Action and guides the caller to the one or many resources can serve the caller, The CoC is striving to do everything we can to ensure individuals and families in need have clear direction for accessing appropriate services. After entry into an emergency service, individuals are tracked as they progress toward housing and/or support interventions. All homeless families and those individuals prioritized for permanent supportive Annual Action Plan 72 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) housing placements are guided toward this centralized process and placed into one of several housing programs depending on assessment. Standardized assessments include a quick assessment for emergency services and eligibility and enrollment materials for housing placements. Representatives of the City worked with the CoC, ESG funders, and service providers to improve the coordinated assessment system to meet requirements set forth in Notice CPD-17-01. Identify the process for making sub-awards and describe how the ESG allocation available to private nonprofit organizations (including community and faith-based organizations). Granting sub-awards is an intensive, months-long process. It begins with applications being made available and workshops held to explain different federal grant programs and eligible activities under each. SLC staff also reach out to potential applicants through the Salt Lake Homeless Coordinating Council, the local Continuum of Care, the Utah Housing Coalition, and others. After the application period closes, a general needs hearing is conducted to help guide how ESG monies should be spent. Applications are discussed with a resident advisory board in a public forum. Applicants are invited to meet with the resident advisory board to answer final questions or provide additional information regarding their programs and their role in the larger homeless services system structure. The Community Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board (CDCIP Board) reviews the ESG applications and makes a recommendation to the Salt Lake City Mayor based on federal guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long-term homeless services strategies. The Mayor then makes a recommendation on funding to the City Council based on the CDCIP board recommendation, federal guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long-term homeless services strategies. The City Council holds a public hearing to receive comments on the program applications and recommendations. The City Council then makes a funding decision based on public comments, the Mayor’s recommendations, CDCIP Board recommendations, federal guidelines, the 5-Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long-term homeless services strategies. If the jurisdiction is unable to meet the homeless participation requirement in 24 CFR Annual Action Plan 73 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) 576.405(a), the jurisdiction must specify its plan for reaching out to and consulting with homeless or formerly homeless individuals in considering policies and funding decisions regarding facilities and services funded under ESG. Before the Salt Lake City Council makes the final funding decisions for ESG funds, there are multiple venues for public outreach including two public hearings. Efforts are made to include participation from homeless and formerly homeless individuals. Emergency Solutions Grant funds, along with other public and private monies, are used by Salt Lake City to implement our short- and long-term homeless service goals. Individuals experiencing homelessness often help the city craft and implement short-term and long- term service plans. Specific outreach for the development of the Annual Action Plan is done at homeless resource centers and at resource fairs, which are targeted towards those experiencing unsheltered homelessness. ESG subrecipients and other homeless service providers routinely consult with current and formerly homeless individuals to make programming and service delivery decisions. Describe performance standards for evaluating ESG. Salt Lake City scores programs receiving Emergency Solutions Grant funding using the performance metrics required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and local priorities. To increase transparency, leverage resources, and maximize efficiencies, Salt Lake City does the following: • All applications undergo a risk analysis prior to the awarding of funds. • Standardized quarterly reporting is reviewed for compliance, timeliness, and accuracy. • Monitoring and technical assistance risk analyses are performed on all subgrantees to determine which organization would benefit from monitoring or technical assistance visits. • Collect information that supports the required performance measurement metrics and provides context on local initiatives. Annual Action Plan 74 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) To ensure consistent performance metrics, the Salt Lake County Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer Utah’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). All service agencies in the region and the rest of the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Salt Lake City reviews HMIS data to ensure grantees are properly using funds as promised in their contracts and meeting larger City, Continuum of Care, and State goals. Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) Identify the method of selecting project sponsors and describe the one-year goals for HOPWA funded projects: Project Sponsors for HOPWA projects are selected in the same manner as the other CPD grants. Competitive applications are given an administrative score and scored by a resident advisory board. The board makes funding recommendations that are sent to the mayor, and then the Council, who finalize the award decisions. During this process there are two public hearings that are conducted, one in the fall and another in the spring at a public City Council meeting. Additional public feedback is also gathered throughout the year through surveys and at public events. This process is outlined in further detail in Appendix C Citizen Participation Plan in the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and AP-12 Participation of this Action Plan. Our one-year goals are outlined in AP-20 and AP-35 and include providing supportive services to 156 households, STRMU and PHP to 38 households, and TBRA services to 61 households. These services will help to support our Consolidated Plan goals for Housing and Behavioral Health services. Discussion: Salt Lake City appreciates its partnership with HUD and the services that are made possible by the funding provided through the annual entitlement programs. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONPLAN 2020-2024 & AAP 2023-2024 SALT LAKE CITY SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1: VICTORIA PETRO, VICE CHAIR DISTRICT 2: ALEJANDRO PUY DISTRICT 3: CHRIS WHARTON DISTRICT 4: ANA VALDEMOROS DISTRICT 5: DARIN MANO, CHAIR DISTRICT 6: DAN DUGAN DISTRICT 7: SARAH YOUNG Prepared by S A L T L A K E C I T Y HOUSING STABILITY DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT 1 EXHIBIT 4 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONPLAN 2020-2024 & AAP 2023-2024 August 2023 PY 2023 Salt Lake City CDBG & HOME Program Income Substantial Amendment SUMMARY As an Entitlement City, Salt Lake City (the “City”) annually receives federal block grant funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), including through the Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) and Home Investment Partnerships (“HOME”) programs. In addition to being an Entitlement City, the Housing Stability Division (“Division”) receives CDBG and HOME funds, through the annual allocation process, for City-administered direct-delivery programs to preserve and expand affordable housing opportunities. On an annual basis, the Division deploys millions of dollars to address the critical needs of residents and neighborhoods. Some of these projects and program generate revenue, known as Program Income (PI). PI is gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated from the use of CDBG or HOME funds. This may include, but is not limited to, proceeds from the disposition or sale of real property purchased or improved with CDBG or HOME funds; income from the use or rental of real property acquired, constructed, or improved with CDBG or HOME funds; and payments of principal and interest on loans made using CDBG or HOME funds. The Division’s two largest programs in scope and scale are the Home Repair and Homebuyer programs (the “Housing Programs”). The Housing Programs have generated PI from the disposition of property and payments of principal and interest on loans made with CDBG and HOME funds. Approximately $1 to $1.5 million in PI generated from the Housing Programs has historically been included in the Division’s annual budget and has been used for operating capital for the programs. However, more PI has been generated than was being budgeted annually, leaving a surplus in unused and allocated PI (the “Dormant PI”). Program Income generated as a result of activities originally funded through CDBG and HOME programs retain their federal identity in perpetuity and are subject to all federal requirements. On February 7, 2023, the Department of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”) and the Division briefed the City Council on Program Income funds that have been received and retained by the City, and the availability of these funds for housing and community development activities. On June 1, 2023, CAN and the Division also submitted an informational transmittal, outlining the updated PI amounts, providing funding recommendations to consider during the FY24 budget process, and outlining the HUD Consolidated Plan framework that would be required. On August 15, 2023, CAN and the Division held a briefing with City Council to review the transmittal and proposed funding allocations for consideration. The following proposals and corresponding amendments are the result of those transmittals and briefings. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONPLAN 2020-2024 & AAP 2023-2024 Substantial Amendment to 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan: #1 Recognize Additional Allocations of Funding Section SP-35, The Strategic Plan, Anticipated Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 148 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The HUD Program Income represents additional allocations of funding, in excess of 100% of previously adopted amounts, for projects in Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial Amendment. #2 Add New Goals Eligible for Funding Considerations Section SP-45, The Strategic Plan, Goals. HUD 24 CFR 91.215(a). Located on page 159 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. An allocation of funding for Neighborhood Improvements, to provide Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, would be an addition to the list of adopted goals, for projects considered under the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial Amendment. Substantial Amendment to 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan: #1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding Section AP-15, Expected Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 27 of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. A Substantial Amendment is required to recognize the unallocated HUD Program Income. These funds represent an additional allocation of funding, in excess of 100% of previously adopted amounts, 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. The City’s current 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding expected to be available during the program year. #2 Add New Projects to be Funded Under the Annual Action Plan Section AP-35, Projects. HUD 24 CFR 91.220(D). Located on page 35 of the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. A Substantial Amendment is required to provide an allocation of funding for Neighborhood Improvements, to provide Westside Sidewalk/Infrastructure Improvements, as an eligible project to be funded under the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. PUBLIC PROCESS The 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan) specifies the policies and procedures that encourage participation by Salt Lake City residents in the planning, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONPLAN 2020-2024 & AAP 2023-2024 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citizen Participation Plan encourages participation from citizens in neighborhoods that receive significant federal funding and from citizens living throughout the City. The public is invited to comment on the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan before adoption by City Council. Per the guidance outlined in Consolidated Plan, announcements of a Substantial Amendment may be communicated by the following way(s): 1. Public Notice to the Housing Stability Division’s comprehensive email/mailing list; or 2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; or 3. Details will be posted on the Housing Stability Division’s website; or 4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing; AND 5. Published in a newspaper of general circulation. In all areas, the City will look to include the use of electronic communication, meetings, training, noticing, outreach, etc. where appropriate, provided it is clearly communicated for participation by the general public. Public notices and public comment periods will also be published in both English and Spanish. Electronic draft documents of Substantial Amendments will be made available for public review and comment. Where allowable, the City will follow the required noticing of thirty (30) calendar days. An electronic version of the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan will be posted on the Division’s official web site during the same period. All comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Salt Lake City Council staff and the Housing Stability Division staff. Comments may be incorporated into the final Substantial Amendments document. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be attached to the Substantial Amendments. A copy of the Substantial Amendments will be available at www.slc.gov/housingstability. Comments will be accepted from XXX, 2023 through XXX, 20203 A 30-day public comment period will begin following the initial City Council briefing, specifically for the above-mentioned Substantial Amendment components. At least one public hearing, to be scheduled at City Council’s discretion, will also be held during the 30-day public comment period. Prior to making decisions on the Substantial Amendments the Salt Lake City Council will consider and review all public comments. Written comments may be submitted to the Council at Comments.Council@slcgov.com, or to the Housing Stability Division contact at Dillon.Hase@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages may be left on the Council comment telephone number; 801-535-7654. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CONPLAN 2020-2024 & AAP 2023-2024 CONTACT INFORMATION Tony Milner, Director Housing Stability Division Salt Lake City Corporation Tony.Milner@slcgov.com 801-535-6168 Dillon Hase, Community Development Grant Supervisor Housing Stability Division Salt Lake City Corporation Dillon.Hase@slcgov.com 801-535-6402 TO VIEW THE: 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN, 2020-2024 CITIZEN PARTCIPATION PLAN, and 2023-2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, please click on the following link, or visit Housing Stability’s main website page at https://www.slc.gov/housingstability/, to obtain additional contact information, directions to our office and office hours. APPENDICES: • Substantial Amendments to SP-35 Anticipated Resources, SP-45 Goals, AP-15 Expected Resources, and AP-35 Projects 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan - SP-35 and SP-45 SP-35 ANTICIPATED RESOURCES 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City’s funding year 2020-2024 CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA allocations are estimated to be a total of $25,000,000 estimating an average of $5,000,000 per year. In addition, Salt Lake City anticipates having program income of $7.5 $23.5 million during the same time period, with an estimated average of $1.5 million of program income earned and available to spend each year, and one-time unallocated program income in the amount of $16,073,220.90. HUD allocations will be utilized to address the growing housing and community development needs within Salt Lake City. However, funding has declined over the past decade, making it more difficult to address needs and overcome barriers. Over the course of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City will coordinate and leverage HUD allocations to assist the City’s most vulnerable populations, increase self-sufficiency and address needs in the geographic target area. TABLE SP-35.1 ANTICIPATED RESOURCES Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $13,600,000 $19,733,510.71 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. An additional $6,133,510.71 in CDBG PI has been added through the substantial amendment. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA EXHIBIT 5 Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $4,600,000 $14,539,710.23 Program income is typically generated from housing loan repayments from nonprofit agencies. An additional $9,890,743.13 in HOME PI and $48,967.10 in ADDI PI has been added through the substantial amendment. Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA ES G Administration $301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,160,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re- Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $600,867 $0 $15,000 $615,876 $1,720,000 Prior year resources are unspent funds from previous years. Permanent Housing in Facilities Permanent Housing Placement Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA OT H E R : HO U S I N G – TR U S T F U N D Acquisitions $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust Fund has a budget of $2m and expects to receive a total of approximately $3m in revenue over the next plan period. Administration Conversion and Rehab for Transitional Housing Homebuyer Rehabilitation Housing Multifamily Rental New Construction Multifamily Rental Rehab New Construction for Ownership Permanent Housing in Facilities Rapid Re- Housing Rental Assistance TBRA Transitional Housing OT H E R P R O G R A M IN C O M E All CDBG Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000 Salt Lake City Housing Programs – Program Income All HOME Eligible Activities per Housing Program Rules Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total OT H E R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T L O A N F U N D Economic Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000 The fund currently has a balance of approximately $4m. SP-45: GOALS In consideration of priority needs and anticipated resources, Salt Lake City has defined the following five- year goals: TABLE SP-45.1 GOALS, PRIORITY NEEDS AND OUTCOME INDICATORS Sort Order Goal Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Priority Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 - Housing Expand housing options 2020 2024 Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing CDBG $ 6,000,000 ESG $343,750 HOME $2,500,000 HOPWA $1,940,000 5075 Households assisted 2 – Transportat ion Improve access to transpor tation 2020 2024 Transportati on Target Areas/City Wide Transportati on CDBG $4,000,000 100,300 Households assisted. Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 99000 Persons Assisted Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 1300 Persons Assisted Sidewalk Improvement in low/moderate income neighborhoods: 82,575 Persons Assisted Sort Order Goal Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Priority Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 3 – Community Resiliency Increase economi c and/or housing stability 2020 2024 Economic Developmen t/Public Services Target Areas/City Wide Community Resiliency CDBG $1,250,000 325 Individuals or businesses assisted 4 – Homeless Services Ensure that homeles sness is brief, rare, and non- recurrin g 2020 2024 Public Services/Ho meless Services Citywide Homeless Services CDBG $1,000,000 ESG $825,000 2050 Persons assisted 5 – Behavioral Health Support vulnerab le populati ons experien cing substanc e abuse and mental health challeng es 2020 2024 Public Services/Beh avioral Health Citywide Behavioral Health CDBG $500,000 400 households assisted 6 – Administrat ion Administ ration 2020 2024 Administrati on Citywide Administrati on CDBG $3,200,000 ESG $103,125 HOME HOPWA $60,000 N/A TABLE SP-45.2 GOAL DESCRIPTIONS Goal Name Goal Description 1 Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods. • Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeted rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within the neighborhoods • Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for qualified residents • Support programs that provide access to home ownership • Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and/or end homelessness • Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health programs • Provide housing and essential supportive services to persons with HIV/AIDS Goal Name Goal Description 2 Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options. • Within eligible target areas, improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the experience of public transit • Within eligible target areas, expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation • Support access to transportation, prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations • Within eligible target areas, improve sidewalk infrastructure to promote safety and accessibility to the public as well as encourage alternate modes of transportation. 3 Community Resiliency Provide tools to increase economic and/or housing stability • Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that increase economic mobility • Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating commercial buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area • Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses • Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses • Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of poverty • Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the internet • Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population 4 Homeless Services To expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring • Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness • Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency Overflow Operations • Provide support for programs undertaking outreach services to address the needs of those living an unsheltered life • Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive services 5 Behavioral Health To provide support for low-income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges. • Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing behavioral health crisis 6 Administration To support the administration, coordination and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA programs 2023 Annual Action Plan - AP-15 and AP-35 AP-15, EXPECTED RESOURCES Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 4 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CD B G Acquisition $3,397,763 $1,000,000 $7,133,510.71 $1,200,000 $5,597,763 $11,731,273.71 $4,500,000 Funds include $3,397,763 in annual entitlement award, an estimated $1 million in program income and $1.2 million in reallocated funds. An additional $6,133,510.71 in CDBG PI has been added through the substantial amendment. Administration Economic Development Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Construction Multifamily Public Improvements Public Services Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA Historic Rental Rehabilitation New Construction HO M E Acquisition $1,023,661 $800,000 $10,739,710.23 $200,000 $2,023,661 $11,963,371.23 $4,600,000 Funds include $1,023,661 in annual entitlement award, an estimated $800,000 in program income and $200,000 in Administration Homebuyer Assistance Homeowner Rehabilitation Multifamily Rental Uses of Funding Expected Amount Available – Year 4 Expected Amount Available – Remainder of Con Plan Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total Construction Multifamily reallocated funds. An additional $9,890,743.13 in HOME PI and $48,967.10 in ADDI PI has been added through the substantial amendment. Rental Rehabilitation New Construction for Ownership TBRA ES G Administration $303,100 $0 $0 $303,100 $300,000 $303,100 in annual entitlement award. Financial Assistance Overnight Shelter Rapid Re- Housing (Rental Assistance) Rental Assistance Services Transitional Housing HO P W A Administration $932,841 $0 $80,000 $1,012,841 $1,000,000 Funds include $932,841 in annual entitlement award and $80,000 in reallocated funding. Permanent Housing in Facilities Permanent Housing Placement STRMU Short-Term or Transitional Housing Facilities Supportive Services TBRA AP-35, PROJECTS CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development 2023-24 CDBG $925,000 $1,175,000 Goal Outcome Indicators Façade treatment/business building rehab 20 25 CDBG: Sidewalk and Infrastructure Improvements CDBG $0 ($250,000) Goal Outcome Indicators Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit ~ 30,000-60,000. (TBD, dependent upon the type of sidewalk or infrastructure improvements and the census tracts). The number will be the number of people living in the eligible census tracts that benefit from these activities. CDBG: Housing 2023-24 CDBG $3,333,547 $8,967,057.71 Goal Outcome Indicators Rental units rehabilitated 89 Homeowner housing added 3 17-200 (TBD, dependent upon nature of acquisition) Homeowner housing rehabilitated 378 HOME: Development Activities 2023-24 HOME $561,870 $10,501,580.23 Goal Outcome Indicators Rental units rehabilitated 38 Rental units constructed 1 620 1 RESOLUTION NO. ________ OF 2023 An appropriations resolution to authorize project allocations for unallocated Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funding Program Income and adopt 3rd Substantial Amendment to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City (City) le under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 24, Part 91, et. al., received allocations of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds; and WHEREAS, in order to utilize said CDBG and HOME funds, the City adopted the 2020- 2024 Consolidated Plan by Resolution 9-2020 on May 5, 2020, which was amended by the 1st Substantial Amendment to include new HUD-COVID funding by Resolution 8-2021 on February 16, 2021, and was further amended by the 2nd Substantial Amendment to include HUD HOME-ARP funding by Resolution 8-2023 on March 21, 2023 (collectively, the “Consolidated Plan”), and the 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan (the “Annual Plan”) by Resolution 9-2023 on April 18, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City has expended those funds pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the CFR, and the Funding Agreements and, those funds have generated Program Income; and WHEREAS, “Program Income” is defined in 24 CFR 570.489 (e) and 24 CFR 92.2 as gross income received by the jurisdiction that has been directly generated from the use of CDBG or HOME funds; and WHEREAS, the City will allocate CDBG Program Income funds in the amount of $6,133,510 and HOME Program Income funds in the amount of $9,939,710; and WHEREAS, in order to utilize said Program Income funds, the City is required to substantially amend the Consolidated Plan and Annual Plan, per the regulatory requirements outlined in HUD’s Substantial Amendment Section in 24 CFR 91.505 (b), HOME Program Income requirements in 24 CFR 92.503, CDBG Program Income requirements in 24 CFR 570.504, and the City’s approved 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan; and WHEREAS, the public notices and other pre-submission requirements as set forth in 24 CFR Part 91 have been accomplished by the City, including holding a public comment period on the substantial amendments _______ through _________, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City Council does now meet on this day of _______________, 2023 to adopt substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan and Annual Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 2 1. That the City Council hereby adopts the substantial amendments to the 2020- 2024 Consolidated Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan for the use of CDBG and HOME Program Income funds as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 2. That the Mayor, as the official representative of Salt Lake City, or her designee, is hereby authorized to submit the substantial amendments described above with such additional information and certifications as may be required under 24 CFR Part 91 to HUD. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of _______________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By _____________________________ CHAIR Approved as to form: __________________________ Kimberly K. Chytraus Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ CITY RECORDER September 11, 2023 3 EXHIBIT “A” Funding Allocations for CDBG and HOME Program Income, and Substantial Amendments to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan. See attached. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 08/08/2023 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 08/08/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods SUBJECT: TAG SLC Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments at approximately 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 S Jefferson Street – Petitions PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022- 00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207 STAFF CONTACT: Brooke Olson, Principal Planner brooke.olson@slcgov.com or (801)-535-7118 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation from the Planning Commission and deny the requested zoning map and master plan amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: TAG SLC, LLC is requesting the following Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments for the properties located at approximately 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 S Jefferson Street: 1. Ballpark Station Area Plan Amendments: To amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan, Future Land Use Designations of the subject properties from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use. 2. Zoning Map Amendments: To rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multifamily Residential Zoning District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:36 MDT) The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner to accommodate several multifamily developments. Future development plans were not submitted by the applicant at this time. The proposed Zoning Map and Master plan amendment request includes four properties. Three of the four are located along the south side of Goltz Avenue. The other is located on the west side of Jefferson Street. It should be noted that the applicant submitted the applications in 2021 with a request to rezone the properties at 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1061 S Jefferson Street from RMF-35 to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). Staff received several comments from the community regarding the request to rezone the properties to FB-UN2 (see Attachment F in the staff report), the majority of which voiced opposition to the proposal. In late 2022 the applicant revised their rezone proposal from FB-UN2 to R-MU, removed 1061 S Jefferson Street and added 1036 S Jefferson Street to the request. Vicinity Map HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION: The applicant was required to submit a housing loss mitigation plan as part of this request, per Chapter 18.97 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a housing loss mitigation plan is approved by the city before any petition is approved for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units. A housing loss mitigation plan is required for this petition because the R-MU zone allows nonresidential uses. Options for mitigating residential housing loss include providing replacement housing, paying a fee to the City’s housing trust fund based on the difference between the housing value and replacement cost of building new units, and, where deteriorated housing exists and is not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner, the petitioner may pay a flat fee to the City’s housing trust fund. The applicant intends to provide replacement housing. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Previous rezone request – FB-UN2 • March 3, 2022 – The Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils were sent the 45 day required notice for recognized community organizations. Property owners and residents within 300 ft of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • May 5, 2022 – The Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils discussed the petitions at a joint Community Council meeting. Several community members voiced concerns regarding the density, height, and parking regulations of the FB-UN2 zoning district. In general, the community voiced opposition to the proposal. • March 2022 – March 2023 – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. Current rezone request – R-MU • March 6, 2023 - An early notification was sent to the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils and all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. • April 20, 2023 - Staff met with the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils to present the project and gather feedback from the community. The Community Councils provided letters of opposition for the project. • June 14, 2023 - The Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a negative recommendation to amend the zoning map and Ballpark Station Area Plan for the subject properties to the City Council for their review and decision. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On June 14, 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The following are some of the key topics that were discussed. This is a summary only. The full public hearing can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IdalcOM0dg • 7 members of the public spoke in opposition of the petitions including a representative of the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils. Members of the public voiced concerns regarding: o Building scale and neighborhood compatibility o Changing the recently adopted Ballpark Station Area Plan, which has not been implemented. o Lack of parking, setbacks, buffer requirements and design standards of the R-MU zone. o Shadow and light impacts on adjacent properties. o Loss of existing housing, middle housing types, and opportunities for owner occupancy. • A petition was submitted by neighbors within the vicinity of the project site (see attachments) which includes 19 signatures in opposition of the proposal. • During the Commission’s discussion, several commissioners voiced support for the proposal with the determination that the area should support high density development due to the existing public transit infrastructure in the area. • Several commission members also voiced opposition to the proposal with the determinations the development regulations of the R-MU zone are too intense for the subject properties and surrounding area. The Commission members in opposition also acknowledged the time and effort members of the neighborhood contributed to creating the Ballpark Station Area Plan, and emphasized that the community’s recently established vision for the neighborhood should be respected. • The Commission voted threes times before a motion was passed. The first two motions failed due to tied votes with 5 yes votes and 5 no votes. The third motion passed and the Commission voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council, with 6 yes votes and 4 no votes. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of June 14, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of June 14, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Comments received after the publication of the Planning Commission Staff Report 4) Ordinance 5) Original Petition 6) Mailing List ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. COMMENTS NOT INCLUDED WITH PC STAFF REPORT 4. ORDINANCE 5. ORIGINAL PETITIONS 6. MAILING LIST 1. Project Chronology ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022- 00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207 Nov. 2021 Salt Lake City initiated the creation of a small area plan within the Ballpark Neighborhood, The Ballpark Station Area Plan. Jan. 18, 2021 Zoning Map Amendment petitions (PLNPCM2021-01307, -01308, & -01309) to rezone the properties at 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1061 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 to FB-UN2 are assigned to Brooke Olson, Principal Planner. Feb. 10, 2022 Planning Staff determines that the proposed rezones to FB-UN2 do not align with the applicable adopted Master Plan, the Central Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map. For consistency between the proposed zoning district and the master plan, a Master Plan Amendment petition would be necessary. Feb. 22, 2022 Planning Staff Requests Housing Loss Mitigation Plan Apr. 4, 2022 Master Plan Amendment petitions (PLNPCM2022- 00198, -00199, & -00207) are assigned to Brooke Olson, Principal Planner Apr. 5, 2022 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment petitions are deemed complete after the applicant submits Master Plan Amendment and Housing Loss Mitigation Plans for the proposal. Apr. 12, 2022 Public notice regarding this request is sent to the chairs of the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils, and to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. An Open House page is also posted on the Division’s website. May 5, 2022 The applicant presents the proposal at a joint Ballpark and Central 9th Community Council meeting. Several community members voiced concerns regarding the density, height, and parking regulations of the FB-UN2 zoning district. In general, the community voiced opposition to the proposal. May 17, 2022 The applicant contacted staff and requested to place the applications on hold to evaluate an alternative zoning amendment proposal. Oct. 2022 The Ballpark Station Area Plan was adopted by Salt Lake City Council. Dec. 5, 2022 The applicant informed staff they were ready to move forward and revise their rezone proposal from FB-UN2 to R-MU, Residential Mixed Use, remove 1061 South Jefferson Street and add 1036 S Jefferson Street to the application. Jan. 2022 – Feb. 2023 The applicant worked with staff to submit their revised applications to rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 to R-MU and to amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan, future land use designations of the subject properties from medium density residential to high density residential mixed use. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director Mar. 6, 2023 Public notice regarding the updated zoning map and master plan amendment requests are sent to the chairs of the Ballpark and Central 9th Community Councils, and to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. An updated Open House page is also posted on the Division’s website. May 11, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing is sent to property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing property signs are also posted at the subject properties. May 17, 2023 Applicant requests to postpone the public hearing for the petitions to the next Planning Commission agenda. June 1, 2023 Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing is sent to property owners and occupants within 300’ of the subject properties. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing property signs are also posted at the subject properties. June 14, 2023 The petitions are heard by the Planning Commission, and they vote 6 to 4 to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. June 23, 2023 Draft ordinance requested and received from the City Attorney’s Office. June 28, 2023 The Planning Commission ratifies the minutes for their meeting on June 14, 2023. 2. Notice of City Council Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207– TAG SLC, LLC is requesting the following Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments for the properties located at approximately 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 S Jefferson Street: 1. Ballpark Station Area Plan Amendments: To amend the Ballpark Station Area Plan, Future Land Use Designations of the subject properties from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use. (Petitions PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207) 2. Zoning Map Amendments: To rezone the subject properties from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multifamily Residential Zoning District) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). (Petitions PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, & PLNPCM2021-01309) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Brooke Olson at 801-535-7118 or via e-mail at brooke.olson@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, or PLNPCM2022-00207 People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. Comments Received After Publication of PC Staff Report Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To: Subject: Date: Olson, Brooke (EXTERNAL) 135, 159, 163 W Goltz Avenue, & 1036 S Jefferson Street Rezones and Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Amendment Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:53:33 PM Hello Brooke, This letter is from an informal group of neighbors called Friends of Jefferson Park that live around and use the park. We are not in favor of the Rezone and Master Plan Amendments that TAG SLC Is requesting on their lots on Goltz Ave and Jefferson Street. We do not feel that the proposed rezones would have a positive impact on Jefferson Park or the greater neighborhood. The requested rezones increase the density and height allowed on these lots dramatically over the surrounding lots. It would also allow much higher buildings abuting Jefferson Park with little to no setbacks that would help preserve this unique and needed green space in the neighborhood. Jefferson Park and the surrounding neighborhoods are quiet residential streets. The zoning road map laid out in the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan should be adopted and followed. This ensures that future growth in these areas happens in a way that meshes with the current built environment and allows for additional density and missing middle housing. We are in favor of investment in the area and additional density and neighbors to use and love Jefferson Park. We don't think these zoning changes should be made to individual lots that could impact neighbors and the Park so drastically. The zoning in the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan seems to be the right fit for these lots and would encourage development that will someday enhance and be a positive on Jefferson Park. Please consider these comments from our neighborhood group and many other neighbors, and hopefully recommend against this rezone to the Planning Commission. Thank you for your time and hard work on this matter, Friends of Jefferson Park From: To: Subject: Date: O so B ooke (EXTERNAL) Ballpark Commun ty Council Letter on the TAG-SLC Rezones on Jefferson and Goltz Ave Wednesday June 14 2023 12:55:40 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Salt Lake City Planning Commission, We, the Ballpark Community Council, wish to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezone and master plan amendments for the three properties mentioned: 135 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01308), 159 & 163 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01307), and 1036 S Jefferson Street (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01309). After careful consideration and consultation with our community members, we have concluded that these changes are not in the best interest of our neighborhood. Our concerns primarily revolve around the potential negative impacts of high-density residential mixed-use developments in this area. We believe that such developments would result in increased traffic congestion, decreased parking availability, and a strain on existing infrastructure and resources. Also the proposed changes would allow for development that would no be consistent with properties already in the area, as you can see in the image attached to this email. We urge the Commission to consider the views and concerns of the Ballpark Community Council and its residents before making any decisions regarding these zoning and master plan amendments. We believe that sustainable and responsible development should be prioritized, taking into account the well-being and livability of the existing community. Sincerely, Ballpark Community Council From: To: Subject: Date: Olson, Brooke (EXTERNAL) Letter for the TAG-SLC Rezones & Master Plan Amendments on Goltz and Jefferson St Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:40:09 PM Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. To the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, We, the Central 9th Community Council, wish to express our opposition to the proposed master plan amendments for the three properties mentioned: 135 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01308), 159 & 163 W Goltz Avenue (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01307), and 1036 S Jefferson Street (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01309). After careful consideration and consultation with our community members, we have concluded that these amendments are not in the best interest of our neighborhood. Our concerns primarily revolve around the fact that the master plan for the area has not been finalized, and the proposed amendments would prematurely dictate the future development of the neighborhood. We believe it is essential to engage in a comprehensive and inclusive planning process that involves meaningful community input before making any significant amendments to the master plan. Rushing into changes without a thorough understanding of the long-term implications could have detrimental effects on the neighborhood's character, livability, and sustainability. Sincerely, Central 9th Community Council Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To: Subject: Date: Planning Public Comments (EXTERNAL) TAG SLC Master Plan and Zoning Map Wednesday, June 14, 2023 10:15:54 AM Dear Planning Commission I am writing you in reference to an item on the agenda for tonights meeting. The item is PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, PLNPCM2021-01309, PLNPCM2022- 00198, PLNPCM2022-00199, & PLNPCM2022-00207 Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments I am writing in support of the staff recommendation to not permit the up-zone of the parcels in question. As the Ballpark Station Area Plan notes this area is zoned for medium density development, which I think is appropriate. A salient point is that these proposed re-zone is adjacent to the only existing public park in the neighborhood. A potential 7 or 8 story building allowed in the proposed RMU zoning, looming over this park will adversely impact the park users experience very negatively in my opinion. I believe a three story building would be much more appropriate for this location. Thanks for considering my comments. Best regards Bill Davis - ex-officio Chair Ballpark Community Council Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Olson, Brooke Re: (EXTERNAL) Request to meet Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:38:53 PM image001.png Hi Brooke I am traveling on business but should be able to call from the airport Thursday around 2 — would that work? Fraser On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 5:43 PM Olson, Brooke <Brooke.Olson@slcgov.com> wrote: Hi Fraser, Thank you for reaching out. I would be happy to set up a call with you tomorrow or Thursday to discuss the City’s process. I have availability tomorrow or Thursday afternoon. Please let me know what timeframes will work for you. Thank you, BROOKE OLSON | (She/Her/Hers) Principal Planner PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Office: (801) 535-7118 Email: Brooke.olson@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING WWW.SLC.GOV Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. From: Fraser Nelson < Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 5:53 PM To: Olson, Brooke <brooke.olson@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Request to meet Hi Brooke, First I'd like to thank you for your presentation on Wednesday 6/17/2023 to the city council regarding the TAG SLC, LLC rezones and that is the cause of my concern, the tiny section of the Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area that is contradictory worded and the entire basis of TAG SLC's argument. Here is the text in full with what I believe the alterations should be: Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area The area encompassing approximately east of the 200 West TRAX line to the West Temple corridor and Paxton Avenue to Mead Avenue to the north is characterized by a mix of housing types and commercial uses. Redevelopment of the area should support a live/work/play community by providing a mix of uses and building scales. Larger building forms are appropriate along corridors where large building forms are already present or where it is abutting of the TRAX line on 200 West or along the West Temple corridor. These larger building forms should consist of approximately 5-7 stories and provide some commercial spaces/residential amenities. Smaller building scales should be focused on areas adjoining Jefferson Street and avenue streets; smaller building scales should generally consist of 2-3 stories and almost entirely comprised of medium-density residential uses. Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. The map above is the entire area used with the rezoning proposals later on, all 1.5 square blocks of it. With these two things combined it is evident that the "spirit" of this description is that 5-7 story mixed use type structures belong on West Temple and 200 W and 2-3 story residential structures on Jefferson St (specifically mentioned above) and surrounding avenues: Fremont Ave, Goltz Ave, Mead Ave, and Paxton Ave being the only 4 avenues in this area. Those 8 little words destroy this design/vision because of C9 Flats existence and location, it currently gives developers the opening and justification to put 5-7 story mixed use type structures on ANY lot north of the park and in the future when a single R-MU structure is built anywhere south of the park. In conclusion, I would appreciate any information you could give me as to what I can do or can be done in general to get this section amended before it is finalized. Thank you for your time. -Lee Anderson m ub c RN P e W M Caut on Th s s an xte na ma P e se be caut us wh n c ck g n s o open ng at achmen s Good mo n ng B ooke I went o can t ose pet t on pa es tod y ut I fo got my ew compu e w not wo k w th s sca ne I se d a co p e pho os but I an p obab y sc n t un h t me I w a so b ng Pe e on ocumen s o the meet ng oday Tha k yo ! -Cha es But on Th s s a pet t on a ga n t e on ng f om med um d ns ty to h gh ens ty s ent a m ed use Th se s gna u es a e f om ne ghbo s d ect y su ou d ng he ezon ng a eas th y a e not f e s gn tu es 4. Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of properties located at 135, 159, and 163 W Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU Residential Mixed Use District, and amending the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Descriptions) An ordinance pertaining to properties located at 135, 159, and 163 West Goltz Avenue and 1036 South Jefferson Street (the “Properties”) as legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, amending the zoning map from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU Residential Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2021- 01307, PLNPCM2021-01308, and PLNPCM2021-01309 and amending the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Descriptions from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022- 00199, and PLNPCM2022-00207. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on June 14, 2023 on an application submitted by TAG SLC, LLC (“Applicant”) to rezone Properties from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R-MU Residential Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2021-01307, PLNPCM2021- 01308, and PLNPCM2021-01309, and to amend the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan Future Land Use Descriptions with respect to the Properties from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use pursuant to Petition Nos PLNPCM2022-00198, PLNPCM2022- 00199, and PLNPCM2022-00207; and WHEREAS, at its June 14, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) deny said applications; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Properties identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby are rezoned from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to R- MU Residential Mixed Use District. SECTION 2. Amending the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan. The Future Land Use Descriptions of the Ballpark Station Area Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of the Propertes identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential Mixed Use. SECTION 3. Condition. Approval of this ordinance is conditioned upon the Applicant entering into a development agreement requiring Applicant to replace any dwellings demolished on the Property with at least as many dwelling units as will be demolished. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-713. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the condition set forth in Section 3 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2023. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . Ordinance amending zoning and MP 135 159 163 W Goltz Ave APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: June 23, 2023 By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney EXHIBIT “A” Affects properties located at 135 West Goltz Avenue Tax ID No. 15-12-428-016-0000 LOTS 16 17 & E 1/2 LOT 18 BLK 1 WEST BOULEVARD SUB CONTAINS 8,276 SQUARE FEET OR 0.19 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 159 West Goltz Avenue Tax ID No. 15-12-428-012-0000 LOTS 24 & 25 BLK 1 WEST BOULEVARD SUB CONTAINS 6,534 SQUARE FEET OR 0.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 163 West Goltz Avenue Tax ID No. 15-12-428-011-0000 LOTS 26 & 27 BLK 1 WEST BOULEVARD SUB CONTAINS 6,534 SQUARE FEET OR 0.15 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 1036 South Jefferson Street Tax ID No. 15-12-408-015-0000 LOTS 1 & 21, BLK 3, WEST DRIVE SUB CONTAINS 7,405 SQUARE FEET OR 0.17 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 5. Original Petitions 8FTU (PMU[ "WFOVF Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): 135 W Goltz Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: ✔ Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Updated ϴ/2ϭ/2ϬϮϭ Zoning Amendment SA L T LA K E CI T Y PL A N N I N G Name of Applicant: TAG SLC, LLC Phone: WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. ✔ List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. hƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϴ�ϮϭͬϮϬϮϭ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ✔ St a f f Re v i e w !" # $ %&' Ÿ ( $ # ) *+,-./-)012 3 4 56 789 : 3 4 56 9 &%!; 4 <9 = !"# $ %&' 9 >1-?/->@)A+B-CD-*)1)E+0F+0*)@G?C+)0 % $!"HIJ; 4 &%! % 8K!% % L9 yz{| }~€ = !" '54 9 ‚ƒ}„}…~†‡ˆ ‰„ & ! 9 Š‹yŒŽŠŒ‹ % $!" '54 9 ¡œ~¢{‹£Žˆ¤’€‰’“”„€¥ˆ¦‚Šy{ MN 5'!" '54 9 O 'PQ 9 ‘’“”•€’–—˜™˜~š zyŒ{‹ŒzŠy '54 R$S % $ 5 HIJ; 4 &%! % 89 Ÿ TU % O! % 4 !% %4 5 4 T %9 = !"&%! % 8TU %K5" 5" % "%! '54 L9 >VWXYWZ[\W 5 5! '5 "!% 5! 8J % ]I5% J8 %!; 4 ' % ! $I% ]I 5 "!% 5! 5$ %!65 "!%$ " '8$5$^ '5 "!% 5! % ]I5% "!%$ " '8$5$U5'J 4! 5 IJ'54_5 4'I 5 ` %!" $5! ' %4 5 4 I% '!% `5 %5 ` % U5 `$_"!% I% !$ $!" IJ'54 % 65 U J8 85 % $ % 8^ ?A?+1?a1-,)0/.1C?C+)0 &' %$ % 6 5' J' "!%4! $I' 5! %5!% !$IJ 5 5 ` 5$ '54 5! ^&' $ 5' b! 5 `c$'4`!6^4! 5"8!I 6 8]I $ 5! $% ` % 5 ` % ]I5% $!" 5$ '54 5! ^ @-d.+@-B*- Q5'5 `" !"efgh 'I$eiji % 4% 5 4 $!"! 4% ^ eik"!% U$ % ! 54 ^ &'I$_ 5 5! '" "!% 5' IJ'54 ! 54 $^# 5'5 `" $U5'J $ $ " % '54 5! 5$IJ 5 ^ /+F0?C.@- l S" '54 J' _ ! %5b $ !"4! $ I !%5b5 ` '54 ! 4 $ ` U5'J % ]I5% ^ mn o p o n q r s t p u v o n w w t wx #$ %&'()*+,)-*&./+.'0123 4 56 7 89 346 4 3 5 :89 5 3;<= >?@ABCD?EF?GBHGH@?IJK@E?BGLKMKJ?MIJ?MEN O@EKE?J?MEI?ALKBCMPEF?GQBGH@?RHBEF?KJ?MIJ?MEN S 53 : 6; 6 2: 4 9 T 4 :23 9: UV : 4 T 97 9W< X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 Y 97Z4 [ 2\ X 48]23 4 3 4 6 2 :5 39VT^ :4 8^ 56 9W 7< X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 _ 8 6 T 4 :23 9\ X 48]23 4 953V7 _ 5 3 9WV W 8^ 56 9W 7< e 23;893 9 6:8VW6 6 d.+.f)0 *)-%'&+gh +:+; +, -. /0 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 / 7 4 8 - - 8 - / , / / 9 0 - 8 4 8 - 7 7 0 - / / 8 -. 0 < < < < 801-478-0662 801-478-0662 Jake@tagslc.com " @/7; C4 ED;71/BJ DD;71/BJ I )GCDCI32 )GCD3GJQ -I3 TAG SLC, LLC Jacob Billitteri 03/08/2022 )G3 23@C;7J7CB *3137N32 Q !/J3 *3137N32 )GC931J '/@3 .CB7B5 22G3II C4 +K0931J )GCD3GJQ '/@3 C4 DD;71/BJ 22G3II C4 DE;71/BJ )6CB3 PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 7B +K0931J )GCD3GJQ % 3;; #/P ✔ (OB3G CBJG/1JCG G167J31J (J63G '/@3 C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G 74 27443G3BJ 4GC@ /DD<71/BJ " @/7< C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G )6CB3 Single-Family Residence (RMF-35) Multi-Family Residence (FBUN-2) 7 B 4 C G @ / J7 C B 7 J I 6 D / G J C / N 2 72 2 3 7J 2 7C 4 B C / G < IJ 7B / 4 4 C 4 G / @ B/ / ; J Q 7C I7 B I @ / < Q < 7 0 B 3 4C G G 3 @ F / K J 7G 7C 3 B 2 G 0 3 Q F J K 6 7G 3 3 D 2 G 4 C C 9 G 31 I J J/ D 4 ; 4 / / B B B / 3 < G QI J 7 C I O 3B 7< I ; K 0 G 3 3 1 / C 2 D 3 7 F 3 K 2 / / J B 3 2 G @ 3 / N 2 73 3 O D 0 K0 Q ? / 71 B Q 7 B 7 B 1 ; J K 3 2 G 7 3 B I 5 J 3 D 2 G C D 4 / 3 G I J I Q 7 CB/< /G167J31JKG/< CG 3B57B33G7B5 2G/O7B5I 4CG J63 DKGDCI3I C4 EL0=71 T $4 /DD;71/0;3 / BCJ/G7R32 IJ/J3@3BJ C4 1CBI3BJ /KJ6CG7S7B5 /DD;71/BJ JC /1J /I /B /53BJ O7;< 03 G3FM7G32 +75B/JKG3 C4 (OB3G CG 53BJ 135 W Goltz Ave "P7IJ7B5 )GCD3HJQ -I3 8FTU (PMU[ "WFOVF Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): 159-163 W Goltz Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: ✔ Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,0ϳϱ, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Updated ϴ/2ϭ/2ϬϮϭ Zoning Amendment SA L T LA K E CI T Y PL A N N I N G Name of Applicant: Somewhere OTR, LLC Phone: WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. ✔ List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. hƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϴ�ϮϭͬϮϬϮϭ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ✔ St a f f Re v i e w !" # $ %&' ¡ ( $ # ) *+,-./-)012 3 4 56 789 : 3 4 56 9 &%!; 4 <9 = !"# $ %&' 9 >1-?/->@)A+B-CD-*)1)E+0F+0*)@G?C+)0 % $!"HIJ; 4 &%! % 8K!% % L9 yz{|y}y~y}€ ‚ƒ„… % $!" '54 9 ¢Œ ž‚£z”‘}{“†–ƒ„Ž–—ˆŸ„¤¥¦’yz” MN 5'!" '54 9 O 'PQ 9 y”|z‘|}y •–—ˆ˜„–™šƒ›œ›‚‡ '54 R$S % $ 5 HIJ; 4 &%! % 89 ¡ TU % O! % 4 !% %4 5 4 T %9 = !"&%! % 8TU %K5" 5" % "%! '54 L9 >VWXYWZ[\W 5 5! '5 "!% 5! 8J % ]I5% J8 %!; 4 ' % ! $I% ]I 5 "!% 5! 5$ %!65 "!%$ " '8$5$^ '5 "!% 5! % ]I5% "!%$ " '8$5$U5'J 4! 5 IJ'54_5 4'I 5 ` %!" $5! ' %4 5 4 I% '!% `5 %5 ` % U5 `$_"!% I% !$ $!" IJ'54 % 65 U J8 85 % $ % 8^ ?A?+1?a1-,)0/.1C?C+)0 &' %$ % 6 5' J' "!%4! $I' 5! %5!% !$IJ 5 5 ` 5$ '54 5! ^&' $ 5' b! 5 `c$'4`!6^4! 5"8!I 6 8]I $ 5! $% ` % 5 ` % ]I5% $!" 5$ '54 5! ^ @-d.+@-B*- Q5'5 `" !"efgh 'I$eiji % 4% 5 4 $!"! 4% ^ eik"!% U$ % ! 54 ^ &'I$_ 5 5! '" "!% 5' IJ'54 ! 54 $^# 5'5 `" $U5'J $ $ " % '54 5! 5$IJ 5 ^ /+F0?C.@- l S" '54 J' _ ! %5b $ !"4! $ I !%5b5 ` '54 ! 4 $ ` U5'J % ]I5% ^ mn o p o n q r s t p u v o n w w t wx #$ %&'()*+,)-*&./+.'0123 4 56 7 89 346 4 3 5 :89 5 3;<= >?@ABCD?EF?GBHGH@?IJK@E?BGLKMKJ?MIJ?MEN O@EKE?J?MEI?ALKBCMPEF?GQBGH@?RHBEF?KJ?MIJ?MEN S 53 : 6; 6 2: 4 9 T 4 :23 9: UV : 4 T 97 9W< X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 Y 97Z4 [ 2\ X 48]23 4 3 4 6 2 :5 39VT^ :4 8^ 56 9W 7< X4 6 : UV 4 T 97 9W 6 _ 8 6 T 4 :23 9\ X 48]23 4 953V7 _ 5 3 9WV W 8^ 56 9W 7< e 23;893 9 6:8VW6 6 d.+.f)0 *)-%'&+gh +:+; +, -. /0 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 / 7 4 8 - - 8 - / , / / 9 0 - 8 4 8 - 7 7 0 - / / 8 -. 0 < < < < 4PVUI +FGGFSTPO 4USFFU E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): 1036 S Jefferson St W, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Name of Applicant: TAG HOLDINGS, LLC Phone: Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: X Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE 0DS $PHQGPHQW ILOLQJ IHH SOXV SHU DFUH H[FHVV RI RQH DFUH SOXV DGGLWLRQDO SXEOLF QRWLFH IHH 7H[W $PHQGPHQW ILOLQJ IHH SOXV DGGLWLRQDO SXEOLF QRWLFH IHH 3XEOLF QRWLFLQJ IHHV ZLOO EH DVVHVVHG DIWHU WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ LV VXEPLWWHG SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: Jordan Atkin 83'$7(' SA L T LA K E CI T Y PL A N N I N G FEE TITLE OWNER SIGNATURE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY This is to certify that I am making an application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application will be processed under the name provided below. By signing the application, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instructions provided by Salt Lake City for processing this application. The documents and/or information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the documents provided are considered public records and may be made available to the public. I understand that my application will not be processed until the application is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete application includes all of the required submittal requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applications. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in writing, a list of deficiencies that must be satisfied for this application to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected information. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public meetings. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. APPLICANT SIGNATURE Name of Applicant: TAG HOLDINGS, LLC Application Type: Mailing Address: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Email: Phone: Signature: Date: AFFIRMATION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST I hereby affirm that I am the fee title owner of the below described property or that I have written authorization from the owner to pursue the described action. Legal Description of Subject Property: LOTS 1 & 21, BLK 3, WEST DRIVE SUB. 8628-5902 8821-3856 8996-3014 9089-4504 9320-1902 9712-38 1N0a2m6e4-o9f 8O7w6ner: TAG HOLDINGS, LLC Mailing Address PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Street Address: Signature: Date: The following shall be provided if the name of the applicant is different than the name of the property owner: 1. If you are not the fee owner attach a copy of your authorization to pursue this action provided by the fee owner. 2. If a corporation is fee titleholder, attach copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the action. 3. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, attach a copy of agreement authorizing this action on behalf of the joint venture or partnership 4. If a Home Owner’s Association is the applicant than the representative/president must attach a notarized letter stating they have notified the owners of the proposed application. A vote should be taken prior to the submittal and a statement of the outcome provided to the City along with the statement that the vote meets the requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. Be advised that knowingly making a false, written statement to a government entity is a crime under Utah Code Chapter 76-8, Part 5. Salt Lake City will refer for prosecution any knowingly false representations made pertaining to the applicant’s interest in the property that is the subject of this application. Updated 9/14/22 _ WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. X List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. _ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. 83'$7(' SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS X St a f f Re v i e w E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: Signature of Owner or Agent: Jacob Billitteri Date: 02/25/22 Master Plan Amendment Amend the text of the Master Plan ✔ Amend the Land Use Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name of Master Plan Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): 1061 S Jefferson St. Salt Lake City, UT 84101 ***Application Updated to 1036 S Jefferson Street Per applicant request on March 3, 2023 Name of Applicant: TAG Holdings, LLC Phone: Address of Applicant: PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: ✔ Owner Contractor Architect Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION Planners are available for consultation prior to submitting this application. Please email zoning@slcgov.com if you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application. REQUIRED FEE Filing fee of $ϭϬϬϴ plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. $100 for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Mailing fees will be assessed after application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Updated ϴ�ϭϲͬ20Ϯϭ SA L T LA K E CI T Y PL A N N I N G WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets electronically.) ĞƐĐƌŝďĞ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ŵĂƐƚĞƌ ƉůĂŶ ĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ ͘ ƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ ĚĞĐůĂƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ ͘ Declare why the present master plan requires amending. Is the request amending the Land Use Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the master plan? If so, please include exact language to be changed. Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. JB I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. hƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϴ�ϭϲͬϮϬϮϭ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ St a f f Re v i e w 22G3II C4 DE;71/BJ )GCDCI32 )GCD3GJQ -I3 1061 S Jefferson St. **Application address updated to 1036 South Jefferson Street per applicant request on 03/03/2023 TAG Holdings, LLC Jacob Billitteri 03/08/2022 )G3 23@C;7J7CB *3137N32 Q !/J3 *3137N32 )GC931J '/@3 .CB7B5 '/@3 C4 DD;71/BJ PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 )6CB3 " @/7; C4 ED;71/BJ % 3;; #/P DD;71/BJ I $BJ3G3IJ 7B +K0931J )GCD3GJQ ✔ (OB3G CBJG/1JCG G167J31J (J63G '/@3 C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G 74 27443G3BJ 4GC@ /DD<71/BJ " @/7< C4 )GCD3GJQ (OB3G )6CB3 Single-Family Residence (RMF-35) Multi-Family Residence (FBUN-2) 7 B 4 C G @ / J7 C B 7 J I 6 D / G J C / N 2 72 2 3 7J 2 7C 4 B C / G < IJ 7B / 4 4 C 4 G / @ B/ / ; J Q 7C I7 B I @ / < Q < 7 0 B 3 4C G G 3 @ F / K J 7G 7C 3 B 2 G 0 3 Q F J K 6 7G 3 3 D 2 G 4 C C 9 G 31 I J J/ D 4 ; 4 / / B B B / 3 < G QI J 7 C I O 3B 7 < I ; K 0 G 3 3 1 / C 2 D 3 7 F 3 K 2 / / J B 3 2 G @ 3 / N 2 73 3 O D 0 K0 Q ? / 71 B Q 7 B 7 B 1 ; J K 3 2 G 7 3 B I 5 J 3 D 2 G C D 4 / 3 G I J I Q 7 CB/< /G167J31JKG/< CG 3B57B33G7B5 2G/O7B5I 4CG J63 DKGDCI3I C4 EL0=71 T $4 /DD;71/0;3 / BCJ/G7R32 IJ/J3@3BJ C4 1CBI3BJ /KJ6CG7S7B5 /DD;71/BJ JC /1J /I /B /53BJ O7;< 03 G3FM7G32 +75B/JKG3 C4 (OB3G CG 53BJ 22G3II C4 +K0931J )GCD3GJQ "P7IJ7B5 )GCD3HJQ -I3 *(# , + *!),!(' jZK>pK >tt>ER >HHStTeb>Z pRKKt <mTttKb HKpEmTjtTeb eO tRK HKtKm_Tb>tTeb em _eHSOTE>tSeb eO K{TptTbP xpK tR>t Tp CKTbP mKkxKptKH (-+!' &) , , , & ', (-+"' !&) , +, , & ', + $% 0HKbtTO| tRK KppKbtT>Z >HyKmpK T_j>Etp eb tRK mKpTHKbtT>Z ER>m>EtKm eO tRK >mK> pxCVKEt eO tRK jKtTtTeb% 1HKbtSO| C| >HHmKpp >b| HzKZZTbP xbStp t>mPKtKH Oem HK_e[TtSeb OeZZezTbP tRK Pm>btTbP eO tRK jKtTtSeb& 8Kj>m>tKZ| Oem K>ER HzKZ[TbP xbTt t>mPKtKH Oem HK_e[StTeb pt>tK Ttp ExmmKbt O>Tm _>mXKt y>[xK TO tR>t xbTt zKmK Sb > mK>peb>CZK pt>tK eO mKj>Tm >bH _Kt >ZZ >jj[TE>CZK CxT[HTbP OSmK >bH RK>\tR EeHKp& 8t>tK tRK bx_CKm eO pkx>mK OKKt eO [>bH ~ebKH Oem mKpTHKbtT>[ xpK uR>t zexZH CK mK~ebKH em EebHStTeb>ZZ| jKm_SttKH te CK xpKH Oem jxmjepKp pexPRt Tb tRK jKtTtSeb etRKm tR>b mKpTHKbtS>Z RexpTbP >bH >jjxmtKb>bt xpKp& >bH 8jKESO| > _TtTP>tTeb j[>b te >HHmKpp tRK Zepp eO mKpSHKbtS>Z ~ebKH [>bH mKpTHKbtT>[ xbTtp em mKpTHKbtS>[ ER>m>EtKm 5mH 6KtStTebKmp pxCVKEt te tRK mKkxTmK_Kbtp eO tRTp ER>jtKm _>| p>tSpO| tRK bKKH Oem _TtTP>tTeb eO >b| mKpSHKbtT>[ RexpTbP xbSt [eppKp C| >b| ebK eO tRK OeZZezTbP _KtReHp! ) 7Kj[>EK_Kbt /expSbP" 9RK jKtTtTebKm _>| >PmKK Sb > ZKP>] Oem_ p>tSpO>Etem| te tRK ESt| >ttembK| te EebptmxEt tRK p>_K bx_CKm eO mKpSHKbtS>Z HzK[[TbP xbTtp jmejepKH Oem HK_e[TtTeb zTtRTb# 9RK ETt| EexbET[ HTptmSEt Tb zRSER tRK [>bH pxCVKEt eO tRK jKtTtTeb Sp [eE>tKH' em )b >HWeTbTbP EexbETZ HTptmTEt SO tRK `TtSP>tTeb pTtK Tp zTtRTb > ebK _TZK m>HTxp eO tRK HK_e[StTeb pStK )b| pxER >PmKK_Kbt pR>Z[ TbEZxHK >HKkx>tK pKExmTt| te Px>m>btKK Ee_jZKtTeb zTtRTb tze |K>mp eO tRK Pm>btTbP eO > HK_e[StTeb jKm_Tt * .KK *>pKH 5b ,SOOKmKbEK *KtzKKb /expSbP ;>[xK )bH 7KjZ>EK_Kbt +ept# 9RK jKtStTebKm _>| j>| te tRK ESt| RexpTbP tmxpt OxbH tRK HSOOKmKbEK CKtzKKb tRK O>Tm _>mXKt y>[xK eO tRK RexpTbP xbTtp j[>bbKH te CK K[T_Tb>tKH em HK_e[TpRKH >bH tRK mKjZ>EK_Kbt Eept eO CxT[HTbP bKz xbTtp eO pT_T[>m pkx>mK Oeet>PK >bH _KKtSbP >ZZ K{TptTbP CxT[HSbP OTmK >bH etRKm >jjZTE>C]K [>z K{E[xHTbP [>bH y>ZxKp + .KK <RKmK ,KtKmTem>tKH /expTbP -{Tptp 4et +>xpKH *| ,K[TCKm>tK 0bHSOOKmKbEK 5O 2>bHezbKm# 7KkxKpt *| 6KtStTebKm .em .Z>t .KK +ebpSHKm>tTeb$ 1b tRK KyKbt tR>t > mKpTHKbtS>Z HzK[ZTbP xbSt Tp t>mPKtKH em jmejepKH Oem HK_e[TtSeb >bH Tp Tb > HKtKmTem>tKH pt>tK Ome_ b>txm>Z E>xpKp pxER >p ( =lx>YK en >QKH eCpe^KpEKcEK vR?t Tq bft gFG@rThbLI D} vRMJK[TCKmAwN BEus ho haUppSidp te >Et eb tRK j>mt eO tRK jKtTtSebKm em RTp jmKHKEKppemp Sb TbtKmKpt zRTER HKtmS_Kbt>Z EebHTtSeb mKHxEKp > HzK[[TbP xbTt p O>Sm _>mXKt y>[xK em R>CTt>CS[Tt| >p > mKpTHKbtS>[ HzK[[TbP xbTt uRK jKtStSebKm _>| mKkxKpt >b K{K_jtTeb Ome_ tRK >CeyK tze _KtReHp eO _TtTP>tSeb Ome_ tRK HSmKEtem eO tRK ESt| p HKj>mt_Kbt eO Ee__xbSt| >bH KEebe_TE HKyKZej_Kbt >p jmeySHKH CK[ez ) VxHP_Kbt >p te zRKtRKm HKtKmSem>tTeb R>p eEExmmKH >p tRK mKpx[t eO HK[SCKm>tK TbHSOOKmKbEK pR>Z[ CK C>pKH eb > jmKjebHKm>bEK eO KyTHKbEK 7KkxTmKH .>Etp 5O 4>txm>[ ,KtKmSem>tTeb 1bEmK>pK .>Sm 3>mXKt ;>ZxK 5O :bStp 9e *K ,K_eZSpRKH! 9RK jKtStSebKm _>| pxC_St te tRK HTmKEtem eO tRK ETt| p HKj>mt_Kbt eO Ee__xbSt| >bH KEebe_TE HKyKZej_Kbt KyKm| O>Et Xbezb te pxjjemt tRK jmejepTtTeb tR>t tRK mKpTHKbtS>Z HzKZ[SbP xbStp zKmK bet jxmjepK[| >Z[ezKH te HKtKmTem>tK C| Z>EX eO mK>peb>C[K _>TbtKb>bEK 6. Mailing List WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 WEST BROOKLYN, LLC 1141 N OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TWO HUNDRED WEST, LLC 720 N REXFORD DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 EZE FAM REV TRUST 1102 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MARATHON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC 3731 W SOUTHJORDAN PKWY #102Ͳ505 SOUTH JORDAN UT 84009 JIMMIE E LONG 1049 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DANIELLE HILDEBRAND; MARCUS A LONARDO (JT) 160 E FORT UNION BLVD MIDVALE UT 84047 KATHLEEN M ROBERTS 175 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DAN E MYLECRAINE 171 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SS CAPITAL, LLC 35 E 100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 ELK RIDGE MANAGEMENT, LLC 376 800 S AMERICAN FORK UT 84003 KRISTIE GILES 1022 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AMRA PASIC 1032 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TAG HOLDINGS, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 TAG HOLDINGS, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 CHARLES EDWIN BUTTON 1052 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LERNICE CABRERA 1056 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JAMIE L THORPE 1058 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TENFIFTEEN PARTNERS, LLC 3045 E LOUISE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 DE ANZAͲC9 LP 960 N SAN ANTONIO RD #114 LOS ALTOS CA 94022 KATHRYN A CAUSEY 923 LONGLEAF DR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 BRYCE K JOHNSON 126 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 AKBAR MATINKHAH 2618 E SKYLINE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 CARNEGIE HOLDINGS LLC 4019 S OLYMPIC WY HOLLADAY UT 84124 R AND J PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LLC 5288 S COMMERCE DR #BͲ150 MURRAY UT 84107 INTERMOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY LLC 5288 S COMMERCE DR #BͲ150 MURRAY UT 84107 GREGORY C KETCH 655 E 100 N ALPINE UT 84004 R AND J PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LLC 5288 S COMMERCE DR #BͲ150 MURRAY UT 84107 GONZALEZ B, RUBEN A & LOPEZ V, TIMOTEO S; JT (JT) 1035 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JKBRT; GRBRT 639 MOUNTAIN VIEW CIR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 DAVID P MIDGLEY 1051 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DOUGLAS FLAGER; MARCUS WRIGHT (JT) 134 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CARLETON J ALLEN 128 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CARL CONNELLY 2263 E HIGH MOUNTAIN DR SANDY UT 84092 VADIM DMITRIYEVICH KOMAROV; CHRISTOPHER 1002Ͳ1006 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 RACHELLE LAM 1008 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 RICHARD ERIC BROWN 1010 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 400 EAST/WT APARTMENTS, LLC 11589 S SUMMERFIELD CIR SANDY UT 84092 STEVEN CHASE ADAMS 1042 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DAVID M BEMIS 8479 S 1380 E SANDY UT 84093 JOSEPH L HERNANDEZ 1047 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TAG HOLDINGS, LLC 2223 S HIGHLAND DR #E6Ͳ375 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ANDREW BURT; CYNTHIA BURT (JT) 133 W MEAD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ISMAEL G SIERRA; JESUS J OJEDA (JT) 1001 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DARIN MASAO MANO 1058 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DARIN MANO; KEVIN RANDALL (JT) 1064 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 KRISTEN MORTENSEN FAMILY TRUST 05/16/2013 13818 S VESTRY RD DRAPER UT 84020 RALPH S GATHERUM & DONETA MCGONIGLE GATHERUM FAMILY TRUST DATED 1 1697 N FORT LN LAYTON UT 84041 SKI BUM LLC 440 W 900 S #12 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GUADALUPE FLORES 1091 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 GUADALUPE FLORES 1091 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TERESA PEREZ; PASCUAL CARDENAS (JT) 1121 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LARISSA M HUNT 167 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SOMEWHERE OTR, LLC PO BOX 9874 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 SOMEWHERE OTR, LLC PO BOX 9874 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 JAMES C TAYLOR; JESSICA M TAYLOR (JT) 3556 S 5600 W # 1Ͳ533 WEST VALLEY UT 84120 JOB G GOWON 145Ͳ147 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LEE ANDERSON 137 W GOLTZ AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TAG SLC, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY CORP PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TAG SLC, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 DOHENYͲVIDOVICH PARTNERS 960 N SAN ANTONIO RD #114 LOS ALTOS CA 94022 ALLEN L CARLSON; ELAINE R CARLSON (JT) 1089 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 PASCUAL CARDENAS; MARIA T PEREZ (JT) 1121 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 PEDRO CARDENAS PEREZ 1127 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JESSICA LARSON 1131 S 200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 BRETT MATESEN 169 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ESTEBAN R. TINOCO; SOPHIE R. TINOCO 4628 W 4695 S WEST VALLEY UT 84120 KATHLEEN LOIS COCHRAN REVOCABLE TRUST 09Ͳ03Ͳ 2008 347 N CENTER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 347 N CENTER ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DAN O GARZARELLI 950 HARBOR AVE HENDERSON NV 89002 JUAN R BUSTAMANTE; GRISELDA A RAMIREZ (JT) 139 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 LAKE LIMITED 8350 S VIA RIVIERA WY COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 N C CARRIDO INC 1085 N NOCTURNE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 PATRICK QUINN; ERIN HAMILTON (JT) 1124 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MORTENSENͲMAHYERA LIVING TRUST 01/05/2017 1122 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CAITLIN ARNWINE; MATTHEW ARNWINE (JT) 1120 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 LEAH THOMAS 353 E 1500 N OREM UT 84057 ROWHAUS CONDOMINIUMS HOMEOWNERS 262 E 3900 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107 SCOTT SORENSON 121 W FREMONT AVE # 17 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 KRISHEILA OCAMPO 123 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 DARREN GONZOL; TARA MLEYNEK (JT) 125 W FREMONT AVE # 119 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 JESSE C WALKER; MARK HOFELING (JT) 127 W FREMONT AVE # 120 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 NATHAN THOMAS PASKETT; ADAM TROY WHITE (JT) 129 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 HENRY S MASTAIN 131 W FREMONT AVE # 122 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 MARCUS MCBRIDE 133 W FREEMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84701 WHITNEY MARIE FINLINSON 135 W FREMONT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ROWHAUS CONDOMINIUMS HOWMEOWNERS 262 E 3900 S # 200 MURRAY UT 84107 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS,LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOS, LLC 1944 E QUARTZRIDGE DR SANDY UT 84092 PARKSIDE CONDOMINIUM HOMEWONERS 7931 BLAZE TRAIL CT ORANGEVALE CA 95662 Current Occupant 230 W BROOKLYN AVE NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 230 W BROOKLYN AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1018 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1024 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1050 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1098 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1039 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1055 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 165 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 151 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1036 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1046 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1015 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1075 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1062 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 120 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 130 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 129 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 127 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 111 W MEAD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1025 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1043 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 124 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1002 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1008 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1010 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1012 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1042 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1068 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1061 S JEFFERSON ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1058 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1064 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1095 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1101 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1103 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 175 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 163 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 159 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 149 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 147 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 135 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 125 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 121 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 168 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 158 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 154 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 148 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 142 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 136 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 130 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 126 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 122 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 110 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1089 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1085 S 200 W Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 185 W GOLTZ AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 163 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 157 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 151 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 145 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1099 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 995 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1011 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1117 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1124 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1122 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1120 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1118 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1118 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 121 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 125 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 127 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 131 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 133 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 125 W FREMONT AVE Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 1 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 2 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 3 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 4 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 5 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 6 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 7 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 8 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 9 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 10 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 11 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST 12 Salt Lake City UT 84101 Current Occupant 1028 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84101 Item C1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: Alley Vacation at Approximately 2167 South 800 East PLNPCM2022-00802 MOTION 1 (adopt ordinance) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject ordinance) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: Alley Vacation at Approximately 2167 South 800 East PLNPCM2022-00802 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Three people, including a representative of the Sugar House Community Council, spoke in support of the alley vacation at the October 17, 2023 combined public hearing for this and the adjacent alley vacation. One person spoke saying she reported illegal fences across the alley to the City but there was no enforcement. Planning staff noted that this resident signed the petition supporting alley vacation and was told she would receive a portion of the alley abutting her property. Council staff reached out to the commenter who confirmed she is supportive of the proposed vacation. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the briefing, Council Members clarified that the property owners on Wilmington Avenue would receive the vacated alley property if the proposal is adopted by the Council. Planning staff stated there was no significant opposition to the proposal. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an approximately 156.75 foot by 7.3-foot east/west alley segment adjacent to the properties at 801, 809, 815, and 825 East Wilmington Avenue (~2170 South) Item Schedule: Briefing: September 12, 2023 Set Date: September 19, 2023 Public Hearing: October 17, 2023 Potential Action: November 7, 2023 Page | 2 in Council District Seven as shown in the image below. The remaining section of alley continues to 900 East and a portion of that alley segment is the subject of a separate alley vacation petition being processed at the same time. The subject alley segment has been used for more than 20 years as a driveway for the home at 2167 South 800 East. A gate at the rear of that property blocks the alley making it impassable. Section 14.52.040 Salt Lake City Code outlines the method of disposition of alley property if a petition is approved by the City Council. If abutting properties are zoned for low density residential use, as in this case, the alley is merely vacated, divided in half and the owners are not charged. However, case law determined that when a vacated alley is on the perimeter of a subdivision, title to the entire alley width goes to abutting property owners within the subdivision from which it was created. The subject alley was created from the subdivision in which abutting Wilmington Avenue properties are located. The property at 2167 South 800 East is in a different subdivision and would not receive half the alley property if the vacation request is approved by the Council. That owner is supportive of the alley vacation and signed the petition. He could work with abutting Wilmington Avenue property owners to purchase the alley segment. Such a transaction would be private and not involve the City. During City department and division review of the alley vacation petition, the Engineering Division stated it is generally opposed to vacating public ways. No other responding department or division objected to the proposed alley vacation. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition at its February 8, 2o23 meeting and held a public hearing at which one person spoke in support of the proposed alley vacation. An email from the Sugar House Community Council supporting the vacation was also read. The Commission followed Planning staff’s recommendation and voted 10-1 in support of the proposed alley vacation, with a condition that a utility easement is established in place of the existing public alley right-of- way. The Commissioner who voted against the alley vacation stated she prefers to leave the entire alley open for public use. That would require obstructions such as accessory buildings, and temporary blockages partially or completely blocking the alley to be removed. Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTION 1. Does the Council support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to close this alley? Page | 3 Image showing the subject alley vacation request highlighted in yellow. (The abutting alley vacation request is highlighted in orange.) Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITONAL INFORMATION Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 5-7 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. Planning staff identified four key considerations connected to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for reference. Please see pages 5-7 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues. Condition 1: Property Owner Consent Section 14.52.030.A.1 Salt Lake City Code requires a minimum of 75% of abutting property owners sign a petition to vacate a City owned alley. All four abutting property owners on Wilmington Avenue signed the petition. As noted above, the abutting property owner at 2167 South 800 East, who would not receive any property as part of the potential vacation, also signed the petition in support of vacating the alley. Condition 2: Master Plan Considerations The Sugar House Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake both support alleyways as contributors to connectivity and the pedestrian orientation in established neighborhoods. However, abutting property owners frequently seek to vacate alleys due to lack of maintenance, access issues, and undesirable activities in the alleys. Condition 3: Existing Alley Conditions Page | 4 The subject alley has not been usable for more than 20 years and effectively exists only on paper. As discussed above the alley segment has been used as a driveway for the property at 2167 South 800 East. There is no access for pedestrians or vehicles, and at 7.3 feet wide, is too narrow for vehicles if it were open. A fence at the rear of the 2167 South 800 East property, and a second fence approximately 70 feet beyond the east block access to the alley. Much of the remaining alley to the east is not used, except for three properties close to 900 East that use it for garage access. Condition 4: Future Public Use of the Alley Future beneficial public alley uses are frequently discussed when considering alley vacations. Such potential uses include active transportation, access to garages and/or accessory dwelling units, and utility access. As discussed above, the subject alley has not been functional for more than 20 years. Wilmington and Commonwealth Avenues are located nearby that allow east/west vehicle and pedestrian traffic, as well as the Sugar House S-Line streetcar and bike and pedestrian greenway which is approximately ½ block from the subject alley. Planning staff found the requested alley vacation request generally aligns with the Sugar House Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake. They and the Planning Commission are supportive of the request. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment C (pages 15-17 of the Planning Commission staff report) is an analysis of factors City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Sections 14.52.020/.030.B Salt Lake City Code). In addition to the information above, other factors are summarized below. 14.52.020 - The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A - Lack of Use- The City’s legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. B - Public Safety- The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. C - Urban Design- The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. D - Community Purpose- The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Planning staff found the requested alley vacation complies with policy considerations A-Lack of Use, and B- Public Safety. A - Lack of Use. In addition to the above-mentioned fences blocking the alley, other fences and an accessory building protrude into the alley. There are also piles of dirt that change the grade height. It is Planning’s opinion that “establishing a public way would require substantial effort and resources with limited payoff. In addition, this portion of the alley narrows to 7.3 feet rather than the typical 13-feet which makes it difficult to for vehicular traffic.” (Planning Commission staff report, page 15.) B - Public Safety. Planning also found the requested alley vacation is consistent with the Public Safety consideration. There have been reported criminal issues and camping along the alley. Planning staff saw evidence of this during a site visit. Page | 5 14.52.030.B - A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council should include an analysis of the following factors: Factor Planning Staff Finding The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant City Departments and Divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Does not comply. (Engineering generally opposes vacation of public rights-of-way.) The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Complies with Considerations A-Lack of Use, and B-Public Safety. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Complies The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Complies The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; Complies No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Complies The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Does not comply. (Request is to vacate a portion of the alley.) The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Complies PUBLIC PROCESS August 31, 2022 - Petition received by Planning Division. September 20, 2022 - Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Principal Planner. September-November 2022 - Original applicant was not eligible to make application for the alley vacation request. New application was submitted and process continued. Page | 6 November 22, 2022 - Information about the proposal was sent to the Chairs of the Sugar House Community Council and the Sugar House Land Use Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. - Early notification announcement of the proposal sent to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. January 6, 2023 - The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. January 26, 2023 - Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. February 3, 2023 - Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. February 8, 2023 - Planning Commission review and public hearing. The Commission closed the hearing and voted 10-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. March 21, 2023 - Draft ordinance sent to the Attorney’s Office. April 7, 2023 - Signed ordinance sent to Planning Division from Attorney’s Office. April 27, 2023 - Transmittal received in City Council Office The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or Page | 7 D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; 4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and 5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; Page | 8 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 27, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2022-00802 2167 S. 800 E. – Alley Vacation Request STAFF CONTACT: Diana Martinez, Principal Planner (801) 535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission to approve the alley vacation request. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Denise Vance, the property owner of 815 E. Wilmington Avenue, is requesting an alley vacation for a 7.3-foot by 156.75-foot portion of the alley that runs west to east within the block north of Wilmington Avenue. The alley is located between 800 East and 900 East. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. The application request for a partial alley vacation must meet one of four policy considerations to be considered by the City. This application meets the first policy consideration: Lack of Use. The portion requested to be vacated has been used as a driveway for the dwelling at 2167 S. 800 E. for over two decades. It is not passable for pedestrians or bicyclist, since it has been gated by residents and therefore, it renders that section unusable as a public right-of-way. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 27, 2023 16:39 MDT)04/27/2023 04/27/2023 PUBLIC PROCESS: ●Early Notification – o Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on November 22, 2022. o Notification of the proposal was sent to Sugar House Community Council on November 22, 2023. The Community Council supported the petition. ●Planning Commission Meeting – On February 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted 10-1 to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for decision. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of February 8, 2023 (Click to Access ) b) PC Minutes of February 8, 2023 (Click to Access) c) PC Staff Report of February 8, 2023 (Click to Access ) EXHIBITS: 1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3.ORIGINAL PETITION 4.MAILING LIST TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. REVISED PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE 1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2022-00802 – approximately 2167 S. 800 E. Alley Vacation Request August 31, 2022 Petition for the alley vacation was received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. September 20, 2022 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Sept-Nov, 2022 Request application modified. Original applicant was not eligible to make application for the alley vacation request. New application submitted and process continued. November 22, 2022 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chairs of the Sugar House Community Council and the Sugar House Land Use Council. To solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. November 22, 2022 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. January 6, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. January 26, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. February 3, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. February 8, 2023 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing February 8, 2023. By a majority vote of 10-1 , the Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation to City Council for the proposed alley vacation. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-00802 – Denise Vance, the property owner of 815 E. Wilmington Avenue, is requesting an alley vacation for a 7.3-foot by 156.75-foot portion of the alley that runs west to east within the block north of Wilmington Avenue. The alley is located between 800 East and 900 East. The property abutting this alley is zoned R- 1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez at 801-535-7215 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-00802. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. REVISED PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ________ of 2023 (Vacating a portion of city-owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at 801 East, 809 East, 815 East, and 825 East Wilmington Avenue) An ordinance vacating a portion of an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 801 East, 809 East, 815 East, and 825 East Wilmington Avenue, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00802. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 8, 2023 to consider a request made by Denise Vance (“Applicants”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00802) to vacate a portion of an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 801 East, 809 East, 815 East, and 825 East Wilmington Avenue; and WHEREAS, at its February 8, 2023 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council; and WHEREAS, the portion of alley that is the subject of this petition was dedicated to public use in the Forest Dale Addition Blocks 19 & 20 Subdivision plat, recorded in 1907, and is situated on the northern perimeter of that subdivision; and WHEREAS, the general rule prescribed by Utah Code Section 72-5-105 is that abutting owners on each side of a vacated right-of-way vest with title to half of the width of the vacated right-of-way, however, as explained in Fries v. Martin, 154 P.3d 184 (Utah Ct. App. 2006), when a vacated right-of-way is situated on the perimeter of a subdivision, title to the entire width of that right-of-way vests only in the abutting property owners within the subdivision; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there is good cause for the vacation of the alley and neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alley. That an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 801 East, 809 East, 815 East, and 825 East Wilmington Avenue, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00802, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby is, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said closure is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023 Published: ______________. Ordinance vacating alley adjacent to 2167 S 800 E APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney April 7, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Legal description of the portion of unnamed, city-owned alley to be vacated: Beginning at the NW corner of Lot 28, Block 20, Forest Dale subdivision and running thence North 7.3 ft. to the north line of an alleyway; thence East 156.75 ft.; thence South 7.3 ft.; thence West 156.75 ft. to the point of the beginning. Item C2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: Alley Vacation Located North of 827 East Wilmington Avenue PLNPCM2023-000225 MOTION 1 (adopt ordinance) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject ordinance) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: Alley Vacation Located North of 827 East Wilmington Avenue PLNPCM2023-000225 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Three people, including a representative of the Sugar House Community Council, spoke in support of the alley vacation at the October 17, 2023 combined public hearing for this and the adjacent alley vacation. One person spoke saying she reported illegal fences across the alley to the City but there was no enforcement. Planning staff noted that this resident signed the petition supporting alley vacation and was told she would receive a portion of the alley abutting her property. Council staff reached out to the commenter who confirmed she is supportive of the proposed vacation. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the briefing, asked about encroachments to the alley and potentially restoring it to function as pedestrian, cyclist, and vehicular use. Planning staff stated significant work would be required by the City to make the alley passable again. In addition, fences and other encroachments on the alley would need to be moved by the property owners. Planning staff also stated that all abutting property owners signed the alley vacation petitioner. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 12, 2023 Set Date: September 19, 2023 Public Hearing: October 17, 2023 Potential Action: November 7, 2023 Page | 2 The petitioner addressed the Council and noted the S-Line pedestrian and cycling path is approximately ½ block to the south of the subject alley. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate an approximately 119 foot by 17.3-foot east/west alley segment adjacent to the properties at 825, 827, and 829 East Wilmington Avenue (~2170 South), and 820, 826, and 830 East Elm Avenue (~2150 South) in Council District Seven as shown in the image below. A segment of the alley between 800 East and the western edge of this alley segment is the subject of a separate alley vacation petition being processed at the same time. The remaining section of alley continues to 900 East and is not included in either current alley vacation request. This alley is located approximately ½ block north of the S-Line streetcar and bike and pedestrian greenway. The subject alley segment was blocked by a fence behind the petitioner’s property at 827 East Wilmington Avenue which has been removed. Fences and structures at other abutting properties partially block the alley. This along with grade changes in the alley makes it impassable by vehicles. It is worth noting that some properties closer to 900 East (not part of either current alley vacation request) use that alley segment for garage access. Vehicle access to those properties would not be impacted if the current alley vacation request(s) are approved by the City Council. Section 14.52.040 Salt Lake City Code outlines the method of disposition of alley property if a petition is approved by the City Council. If abutting properties are zoned for low density residential use, as in this case, the alley is merely vacated, divided in half and the owners are not charged. When a vacated alley is on the boundary of two subdivisions, title to the entire alley width goes to abutting property owners within the subdivision from which it was created. A portion of the subject alley was created from the subdivision in which the Wilmington Avenue properties are located. Another portion was dedicated from previous property owners on Elm Avenue to the Town of Forest Dale (which was later absorbed into Salt Lake City). Property owners on Elm Avenue are not in a subdivision. Planning staff asked the City Attorney’s Office how the alley property would be divided, and it was determined the alley would be divided between abutting Wilmington Avenue and Elm Avenue property owners should the City Council adopt the alley vacation ordinance. Page | 3 Image showing the subject alley vacation request highlighted in orange. (The abutting alley vacation request is highlighted in yellow.) Image Courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. During City department and division review of the alley vacation petition, the Engineering Division stated it is generally opposed to vacating public ways. No other responding department or division objected to the proposed alley vacation. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition during its June 28, 2o23 meeting and held a public hearing at which no one spoke. The Commission followed Planning staff’s recommendation and voted 5-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council for the proposed alley vacation. Commissioners who were opposed noted contrary to City preference the entire alley isn’t being vacated, encroachments into the alley should not be used as justification for lack of use, and vacating would restrict residents’ future use of the alley. Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Does the Council support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to close this alley? 2. If approved, is the Council supportive of dividing the alley property between abutting residents on Wilmington and Elm Avenues? ADDITONAL INFORMATION Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 6-7 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public Page | 4 hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. Planning staff identified three key considerations connected to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for reference. Please see pages 5-6 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues. Condition 1: Property Owner Consent Section 14.52.030.A.1 Salt Lake City Code requires a minimum of 75% of abutting property owners sign a petition to vacate a City owned alley. All six abutting property owners abutting this section of the alley signed the petition. Condition 2: Policy Considerations Planning staff found the requested alley vacation satisfies policy consideration A-Lack of Use as outlined in Section 14.52.020 Salt Lake City Code and discussed in the analysis of standards section below. Condition 3: Master Plan Considerations The Sugar House Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake both support alleyways as contributors to connectivity and the pedestrian orientation in established neighborhoods. However, abutting property owners frequently seek to vacate alleys due to lack of maintenance, access issues, and undesirable activities in the alleys. Planning staff found the requested alley vacation request generally aligns with the Sugar House Master Plan and Plan Salt Lake. They and the Planning Commission are supportive of the request. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment C (pages 11-13 of the Planning Commission staff report) is an analysis of factors City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Sections 14.52.020/.030.B Salt Lake City Code). In addition to the information above, other factors are summarized below. 14.52.020 - The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A - Lack of Use- The City’s legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way. B - Public Safety- The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area. C - Urban Design- The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. D - Community Purpose- The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Planning staff found the requested alley vacation complies with policy considerations A-Lack of Use. A - Lack of Use. It is Planning’s opinion that “the alley has not been used as a public right of way for a long time, and significant encroachments now make it impassable to vehicles and pedestrians. Establishing the right-of- way under existing conditions would require substantial effort and resources with limited payoff” (Planning Commission staff report, page 11.) Page | 5 14.52.030.B - A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council should include an analysis of the following factors: Factor Planning Staff Finding The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and all other relevant City Departments and Divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Does not comply (Engineering generally opposes vacation of public rights-of-way.) The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Complies with Consideration A-Lack of Use. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Complies The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Complies The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; Complies No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Complies The petition furthers the City’s preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Does not comply (Request is to vacate a portion of the alley.) The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Complies PUBLIC PROCESS March 27, 2023 - Petition received by Planning Division and assigned to Diana Martinez, Principal Planner. April 3, 2023 - Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Sugar House Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. Page | 6 -Planning staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. May 15, 2023 - The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. June 15, 2023 - Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. June 23, 2023 - Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. June 28, 2023 - Planning Commission review and public hearing. The Commission closed the hearing and voted 5-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. July 7, 2023 - Draft ordinance sent to the Attorney’s Office. July 18, 2023 - Signed ordinance sent to Planning Division from Attorney’s Office. August 8, 2023 - Transmittal received in City Council Office The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) Page | 7 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; 4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and 5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Page | 8 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2023-00225 Approximate location -north of 827 S. Wilmington Ave. - Alley Vacation Request STAFF CONTACT: Diana Martinez, Senior Planner (801) 535-7215 or diana.martinez@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Alley Vacation request. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Russell Bollow is requesting approval for an alley vacation, located north of 827 E. Wilmington Ave, to vacate (or to give up public ownership of) a portion of a public alley approximately 17.3 feet by 119 feet, starting at a point 156.75 ft from 800 East. If approved, this section of the alley would be divided and given to the property owners abutting the area of the alley vacated. This requested portion of the alley being asked for vacation is an extension of a portion requested to be vacated in a prior application -PLNPCM2022-00802 (shown in yellow in the aerial below). The previous application came before the Planning Commission on February 8th, 2023, and a favorable recommendation to be sent to the City Council was voted on 10-1. This new portion, being requested to be vacated, has been blocked with a fence at the backside of the applicant’s property, is not used as a public right-of-way, and is impassable to travel. Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:35 MDT)08/08/2023 08/08/2023 The remaining portion, not included in this vacation request, is used as a public right-of-way, and there are a few properties that use it as an access point to their properties and garages from the alleyway. Therefore, these properties would not be impacted by this proposed alley vacation. As shown in the previous application PLNPCM2022-00802, the west end of the alleyway has been used as a driveway for the dwelling at 2167 S. 800 E. for multi-decades. Therefore, the alley has only been used partially between 800 East to 900 East. This new portion of the alley has also been blocked off by added fencing and soil, which has increased the grade of the alleyway. Alley Vacation requests must fulfill one of four policy considerations in section 14.52.020 of the City Code: Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, or Community Purpose. Requests are also reviewed against the factors found in 14.52.030.B. Staff’s analysis of the policy considerations, shows that the standards are met by vacating this portion of the alleyway, which would not create detrimental impacts on abutting properties. PUBLIC PROCESS: ● Early Notification – o Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on April 3, 2023. o Notification of the proposal was sent to the Sugar House Community Council on April 3, 2023. A letter in support of the alley vacation was received from the Community Council on April 21, 2023. ● Planning Commission Meeting – On June 28, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for decision. PLANNING RECORDS: a) PC Agenda of June 28, 2023 (Click to access) b) PC Minutes of June 28, 2023 (Click to access c) PC Staff Report of June 28, 2023 (Click to access) EXHIBITS: 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST 5. ORDINANCE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00225 – Located north of 827 E. Wilmington Ave. Alley Vacation Request March 27, 2023 Petition for the alley vacation application received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. March 27, 2023 Petition assigned to Diana Martinez, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. April 3, 2023 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Sugar House Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. April 3, 2023 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. May 15, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. June 15, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. June 23, 2023 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2023. Public hearing notice mailed. June 28, 2023 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 28, 2023. By a vote of 5-2, the Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation to City Council for the proposed alley vacation. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2023-00225 – Russell Bollow is requesting approval for an alley vacation, located north of 827 E. Wilmington Ave, to vacate (or to give up public ownership of) a portion of a public alley approximately 17.3 feet by 119 feet, starting at a point 156.75 ft from 800 East. If approved, this section of the alley would be divided and given to the property owners abutting the area of the alley vacated. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24- Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Diana Martinez, Senior Planner at 801-535-7215 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at diana.martinez@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2023-00225. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include aids and services. Please make requests at least advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. ORIGINAL PETITION 4. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP AURELIO RUELAS 1015 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 WASATCHRENTALPROPERTIES, LLC 110 MATTERHORN DR PARK CITY UT 84098 A SERIES OF 2172 S 11289 S WYNGATE LN SANDY UT 84092 DANIEL A STEPHENS; MEGAN M STEPHENS (JT) 1156 E BLAINE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 TRIBE OF DON LLC 1268 E 10 S LINDON UT 84042 SKH REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC 1280 FOXCREST CT PARK CITY UT 84098 DALE F BONDARUK 1455 W WASATCH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ELM AVENUE HOME LLC 1680 NAVAJO DR OGDEN UT 84402 Current Occupant 2141 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2147 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 ELIZABETH M HUELSKAMP 2151 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 MELISSA L SOUTHWICK 2152 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2160 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 2165 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2166 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 TARTARO REVOCABLE LIVNG TRUST 06/17/2015 2167 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 2172 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2178 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 NELSON VALLE 2182 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 2186 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 GUY W PACE; EMILY C PACE (TC) 2195 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 2198 S 800 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 MATTHEW DALE; ADAM HALL (JT) 2201 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 BRIAN D HANNI & CELIA A HANNI FAMILY TRUST 04/26/2004 2204 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ANDREA RADU 2205 S 800 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 2208 S 900 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 M/S SHOWROOM, LLC 2209 E LORITA WY COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093 Current Occupant 2210 S 900 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 2223 S 900 E Salt Lake City UT 84106 SUSAN M THORN; RUSSELL P BOLLOW (JT) 2734 E CANTON LN SANDY UT 84092 TRIBE OF DON LLC 345 E 3300 S SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 MARK R MORRIS 35 E 100 S # 602 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 GINA P YOUNG; MARK S YOUNG (JT) 3693 E ASTRO WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 SPENCER C ELLIS 4465 S CAMILLE ST HOLLADAY UT 84124 RHAMA RENTALS LLC 60 PELHAM RD ROCHESTER NY 14610 Current Occupant 801 E SIMPSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 YVONNE BANNER 801 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 805 E SIMPSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 NAOMI S NESSEN; STEVEN F NESSEN 809 E SIMPSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 KRISTINA L HEITKAMP 809 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 DENISE M VANCE 815 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 MARGY P RUSSOTTO 816 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 818 E COMMONWEALTH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 JEFFREY MARTIN LANG 819 E SIMPSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 820 E COMMONWEALTH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84111 ALICE U ESPINOSA 820 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 820 E WILMINGTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 823 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 CARLA TUKE 824 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 825 E WILMINGTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 KIMIA GOLCHIN; MAGGIE NARTOWICZ (JT) 826 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 STACEY ANN COLLETT 826 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 827 E SIMPSON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 827 E WILMINGTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 MATTHEW A STEVENS; SUPRIYA APTE (JT) 828 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 829 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 MICHAEL F PECK; ELIZABETH M PECK (JT) 829 E SIMPSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 COREY BULLOUGH 829 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 830 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 DAVID E PETERSEN; ROSALIE B PETERSEN (JT) 830 WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84010 TEDDY ANDERSON 832 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ALEXA LANGFORD 833 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 EMILY HAGN 835 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ROBERT V HARRELL 836 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SHAUN FUHRIMAN 837 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 BRETON WALSH TRUST 08/08/2022 837 E SIMPSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 LORI C ZOUN; ZOURN JACOB E (JT) 839 E SIMPSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 DEBRA S GRIMES 840 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 KAYCEE NIPPER; LANDY NIPPER; PAUL NIPPER (JT) 841 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 DAPHNE A PERRY 841 E SIMPSON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 VERN HARRINGTON; KELLI HARRINGTON (TC) 841 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 LA BREDIN LEGACY TRUST 9/15/2017 844 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 844 E WILMINGTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 EDDIE L BRIDGES 845 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 DREW B DILLMAN; JUDITH B DILLMAN (TC) 845 NORMANDY DR IOWA CITY IA 52246 Current Occupant 847 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 KAIA ANNE RAGNHILDSTVEIT; OYVIND RAGNHILDSTVEIT; TIFFANY RAGNHILD 850 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 MATT A FORNELIUS 850 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 851 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 CAMDEN TAYLOR 853 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 BARBARA L MCCAULEY 854 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 CAROL E METZ TRUST 09/20/2021 856 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 DANA JONES; DAVID JONES (JT) 857 E ELM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 858 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 859 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 STEVEN A JONES; JENNIFER JONES (JT) 861 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 Current Occupant 865 E WILMINGTON AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 Current Occupant 866 E ELM AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106 3AS SUGARHOUSE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 867 N AMERICAN BEAUTY DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BRUNO BEINTEMA LIVING TRUST 04/27/2021 920 IMPERIAL BEACH BLVD IMPERIAL BEACH CA 91932 DAVID G KEVITCH; STACEY FEARNLEY (JT) 979 E CRANDALL AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 JANEECE FIELDS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 08/16/2021 PO BOX 45 SONOMA CA 95476 DEBRA GRIMES PO BOX 521354 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 IXCHEL, LLC PO BOX 522050 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 GRODBROS REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LLLP PO BOX 680365 PARK CITY UT 84068 Diana Martinez, Principal Planner SLC 451 S. State St., PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114- 5480 5. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ________ of 2023 (Vacating a portion of city-owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at 825 East, 827 East, and 829 East Wilmington Avenue, and 820 East, 826 East, and 830 East Elm Avenue) An ordinance vacating a portion of an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 825 East, 827 East, and 829 East Wilmington Avenue and 820 East, 826 East, and 830 East Elm Avenue, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00225. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on June 28, 2023 to consider a request made by Russell Bollow (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00225) to vacate a portion of an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 825 East, 827 East, and 829 East Wilmington Avenue, and 820 East, 826 East, and 830 East Elm Avenue; and WHEREAS, at its June 28, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”); and WHEREAS, the subject portion of alley consists of a 7.3-foot width that was dedicated to public use in the Forest Dale Addition Blocks 19 & 20 Subdivision plat recorded in 1907 and is situated on the northern perimeter of that subdivision (constituting the southern width of the subject alley), and a 7.5-foot private dedication of land to public use from Isaac and Katherine Brockbank (1911) by quitclaim deed (Book 7C Page 327) to the Town of Forest Dale (later absorbed into Salt Lake City), which partitioned the 7.5-foot width from the southern boundary of the Brockbanks’ property (constituting the northern width of the subject alley); and WHEREAS, the general rule prescribed by Utah Code Section 72-5-105 is that abutting owners on each side of a vacated right-of-way vest with title to half of the width of the vacated right-of-way, however, as explained in Fries v. Martin, 154 P.3d 184 (Utah Ct. App. 2006), when a vacated right-of-way is situated on the perimeter of a subdivision, title to the entire width of that right-of-way vests only in the abutting property owners within the subdivision, and, therefore, upon vacation the southern 7.3 feet of the alley’s width shall revert to the abutting owners in the Forest Dale Addition Blocks 19 & 20 subdivision; and WHEREAS, it appears the intent of the Brockbanks’ deed was to add width to the subject alley in order to serve their property, and, therefore, upon vacation the northern 7.5 feet of the alley’s width shall revert to the Brockbanks’ successors-in-interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there is good cause for the vacation of the alley and neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alley. That an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties located at 825 East, 827 East, and 829 East Wilmington Avenue, and 820 East, 826 East, and 830 East Elm Avenue, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00225, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby is, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said closure is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023 Published: ______________. Ordinance vacating alley adjacent 827 E. Wilmington Ave APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney July 18, 2023 EXHIBIT “A” Legal description of the portion of unnamed, city-owned alley to be vacated: Beginning at the NE corner of Lot 18, Block 20, Forest Dale Subdivision and running thence North 14.8 ft. to the north line of an alleyway; thence West 119.25 ft. along said north line to the Northwest Corner of a 7.5 ft alley deeded to Forest Dale City in Book 7C, Page 327, in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office; thence South 14.8 ft. to the south line of said alleyway; thence East 119.25 ft. along said south line to the point of the beginning. Item C3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 1018 East 900 South PLNPCM2022-01120 MOTION 1 (adopt ordinance) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance. MOTION 2 (reject ordinance) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:34 MDT) Date Received: _0_8 /_0_8 /_2_02_3__________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _0_8/_0_8 /_2_02_3__________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment at 1018 S 900 S PLNPCM2022-01120 STAFF CONTACT: Cassie Younger, Senior Planner Cassie.younger@slcgov.com, 801-535-6211 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the zoning map for the property at approximately 1018 E 900 S from RMF- 35, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential to RMF-30, Low Density Multi-Family Residential. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The proposal includes a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of the property at approximately 1018 E 900 S from RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential to RMF-30, Low Density Multi-Family Residential. The applicant has requested the rezone to allow more flexibility in housing types if the property were to redevelop. Planning Commission discussed the petition at the May 24, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing on the issue. The Commission voted unanimously (8:0) to recommend approval of the zoning map amendment to the City Council. Then full public meeting can be viewed using this link at minute 2:09:00 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 For specific information regarding the proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report. PUBLIC PROCESS: • The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to the associated community councils for the property: East Central and East Liberty Park Community Council. A formal letter was sent to these groups on January 26, 2023. The applicant presented their project at the March 3rd East Liberty Park Community Council meeting. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing notice about the proposal and information on how to give public input on the project on January 26, 2023. • An online open house has been posted to the Planning Division’s webpage since February 6th, 2023. • Public noticing of the Planning Commission hearing was completed on May 12, 2023. • No public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission (PC) Records (Click to Access) PC Agenda for May 24, 2023 PC Minutes of May 24, 2023 PC Staff Report for May 24, 2023 EXHIBITS 1. Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Petition Application 4. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending the zoning of property located at approximately 1018 E 900 S from RMF-35 to RMF-30) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 1018 East 900 South from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01120 (the “Petition”). WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 24, 2023 to consider the Petition submitted by Evan and Tina Jenkins, property owners, to rezone the parcel located at 1018 East 900 South (Tax ID No. 16-08-254- 013-0000) (the “Property”) from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family; WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said Petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property, identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential to RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential. 1 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL)APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office June 20, 2023 Date:___________________________Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________.By: ______ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Ordinance rezoning 1018 E 900 S to RMF-30 2 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned: Parcel Tax ID No PARCEL 16-08-254-013-0000: BEG 16 FT W & 65 FT N FR SW COR LOT 13, GILMER PLACE SUB; E 46 FT; N 100 FT; W 46 FT; S 100 FT TO BEG 4631-0105 6481-1567 6772-2135 8931-2599 9093-4238 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.Project Chronology 2. 3. 4. Notice of City Council Public Hearing Original Petition Mailing List 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2022-01120 November 21, 2022 December 21, 2022 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was received. Petition PLNPCM2022-01120 was assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. January 25, 2023 January 26, 2023 Applicant changed the request on their original petition to rezone to RMF-30 instead of RMU. Notice was sent to Recognized Community Organizations informing them of the petition. The RCO’s notified included the East Liberty Park and East Central Community Council. Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. February 6, 2023 March 6, 2023 March 13th, 2023 May 12, 2023 The proposal was posted for an online open house through May 24, 2023. The applicant presented their petition at East Liberty Park Community Council. The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to interested parties and residents/property owners who requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice webpage. Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. May 19, 2023 May 24, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. May 31, 2023 June 20, 2023 Ordinance request sent to Attorney’s Office. Signed ordinance received from Attorney’s Office. 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-01120 Zoning Map Amendment for the property at approximately 1018 E 900 S. Tina and Evan Jenkins, the property owners, initiated a petition for a zoning map from the current zone of RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential, to RMF-30, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, to allow for greater flexibility in housing types if the property redevelops. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petitions. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME:7:00 pm PLACE:451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held in-person, to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.slc.gov/council. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relatingto this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Cassie Younger at 801-535-6211 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at cassie.younger@slcgov.com The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-01120. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3) ORIGINAL PETITION 4) MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME LITTLEBIRD LLC OWN_ADDR 2425 E MICHIGAN AVE 910 S 1500 E OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY HEBER UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT 84108 84105 84105 84105 84105 84101 84105 84102 84032 84171 84105 84105 84105 84111 84105 84115 84105 84105 84088 84105 84105 85255 84105 85255 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84103 84105 84092 71903 84068 84101 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84106 84105 84105 84105 84105 PROJECT HARVEY, LLC ANTHONY MICHAEL LAGGON; CAYLIN MICH912 S 1000 E GARY JENKINS 916 S 1000 E QUALITY NINE REALTY, LLC THOMAS HILL; DEBORAH J HILL TANYA T DE ANGELIS; JOSH D LEVEY LYDIA OJUKA; BEN RILEY LARRY L HUNTINGTON RS ST GEORGE LLC SID GREEN LLC L&MP TRUST DAVID L SANTIVASI 922 S 1000 E 170 S MAIN ST 932 S 1000 E 863 S 1000 E 1550 E. LITTLE SWEDEN RD. PO BOX 71899 1005 E 900 S 1635 E YALECREST AVE 1011 E 900 S 451 S STATE ST # 425 1043 E 900 S 165 W 2950 S SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION EATON & LARSEN, LLC SUGI LLC SOUTH SALT LAKE UT SHERYL J PHILLIPS LISA D MARLEY Current Property Owner BLB15 LLC JESSICA M EVANS CARRIAGE PARK PROPERTIES LLC EVAN C JENKINS; TINA M JENKINS CARRIGE PARK PROPERTIES LLC DAVID BLAIS MICHAEL NOBLE WERTHEIMER; RACHEL LAS928 S MCCLELLAND ST WEBER LIVING TRUST 12/01/2017 MICHAEL LANDON Current Property Owner NICHOLAS A EKDAHL; HOLLY BATEMAN DAVID BLAIS MER TRUST SHERYL J PHILLIPS 927 S 1000 E 933 S 1000 E SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY WEST JORDAN SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SCOTTSDALE UT UT UT UT UT AZ UT AZ UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT AR UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT 1335 W 7800 S 1786 E PRINCETON AVE 1012 E 900 S 18967 N 98TH WY 1018 E 900 S SALT LAKE CITY SCOTTSDALE18967 N 98TH WY 926 S MCCLELLAND ST SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SANDY 934 S MCCLELLAND ST 940 S MCCLELLAND ST 948 S MCCLELLAND ST 947 S 1000 E 926 S MCCLELLAND ST 917 S 1000 E 927 S 1000 E 1176 E SECOND AVE 1038 E 900 S 2363 E LINDSAY WOOD LN PO BOX 21447 PO BOX 681800 44 W 300 S 915 S MCCLELLAND ST NAOMI RICE YONG W KIM; HYE OK KIM MIGUEL JR ESTRADA BRIMLEY COCO LLC FENTON HOLDINGS LLC MICHAEL B CHUNG SUSAN MAKOV DANIEL B MOYES; SHERRY MATTHEWS-MOY923 S MCCLELLAND ST WILLIAM E SHERWOOD; MELANIE SHERWO 925 S MCCLELLAND ST GREGORY M CERVELLI; JAMIE A CERVELLI 927 S MCCLELLAND ST DANIEL MCKINNEY; STEPHANIE MCKINNEY 935 S MCCLELLAND ST HOT SPRINGS PARK CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City Salt Lake City AS REV TRUST 937 S MCCLELLAND ST 943 S MCCLELLAND ST 2121 S MCCLELLAND ST 909 S 1000 E BONNIE J SUCEC KELLY C FAVERO RYAN T STURDEVANT PARK WEED WILLIS; STEPHANIE K WILLIS 913 S 1000 E Current Occupant Current Occupant 989 E 900 S 984 E 900 S Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant Current Occupant 924 S 1000 E Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT 84105 84102 84102 84105 84102 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 84105 866 S MCCLELLAND ST 868 S MCCLELLAND ST 1007 E 900 S 1023 E 900 S 1059 E 900 S 935 S 1000 E 943 S 1000 E 1016 E 900 S 1016 E 900 S 924 S MCCLELLAND ST 923 S 1000 E 1032 E 900 S 920 S MCCLELLAND ST 1054 E 900 S 1058 E 900 S 1066 E 900 S 903 S 1000 E CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: November 7, 2023 RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 1018 South 900 South PLNPCM2022-01120 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE There were no comments during the October 17, 2023 public hearing. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting. The following information was provided for previous meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During the briefing, Council Members expressed general support for the proposal zoning map amendment and did not share any concerns. They clarified that setback requirements are similar for the current and proposed zones. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the parcel at 1018 East 900 South in City Council District Five from its current RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning designation to RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). Recent changes to the RMF-30 zone would allow more flexibility to redevelop the property. The petitioner expressed a desire to redevelop the property at some point, but no plans have been submitted. Under current RMF-35 zoning only a single-family home could be developed on the lot because its 45-foot width and 4,500 square foot area do not meet the minimum lot width and area requirements for other housing types. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 19, 2023 Set Date: October 3, 2023 Public Hearing: October 17, 2023 Potential Action: November 7, 2023 Page | 2 Recently amended RMF-30 zoning with smaller minimum lot sizes could accommodate a variety of housing types and provide small scale infill development potential. The 0.11-acre lot is approximately 45 feet wide and 100 feet deep. Based on the lot size there is potential for two to three dwelling units to be developed if the parcel is rezoned to RMF-30. It should be noted building type, setbacks and required yards may affect the number of units that could be built. Planning staff noted the proposed RMF-30 zone includes design standards for all new development not called for under the current RMF-35 zoning. These standards include entryways, building materials, ground floor glass, and screening of service areas and mechanical equipment. A two-story single-family home is on the property. A multi-family apartment is adjacent to the west, and a duplex is directly to the east. Small businesses and a fire station are on the north side of 900 South. Adjacent zoning is RMF-35, with a mix of R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential), SR-1 (Special Development Pattern Residential), R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential), RB (Residential/Business), CB (Community Business) and PL (public lands (fire station)) in the broader area as shown in the zoning map below. Rowland Hall School (zoned I (Institutional)) is to the northwest. Area zoning map with the subject property outlined in blue. Page | 3 The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its May 24, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which two people spoke. The commenters were not opposed to the proposed zoning map amendment, but expressed concern about potential parking issues, and would like additional housing on the site to be affordable. The Commission voted 8-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they plan to include any affordable housing in potential future projects on the subject sites. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant if they would be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units? 2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the recently-transmitted Affordable Housing Incentives proposal may impact this petition or development potential on the property. Note: The Affordable Housing Incentives proposal is also on the Council’s September 19th agenda. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Housing Loss Mitigation Petitions requesting a zoning change that would permit non-residential use of land on which a residential dwelling unit exists must include a housing loss mitigation plan approved by the Community and Neighborhoods Department Director. This is included as Attachment F (pages 35-51) of the Planning Commission staff report. The petitioner proposed providing replacement housing to mitigate the loss of housing units if the property is redeveloped. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-7 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 - How the proposal helps implement City goals and policies identified in adopted plans. Planning staff found that the proposed zoning map amendment generally aligns with Plan Salt Lake, the Central Community Master Plan, and East Central Community Small Area Plan goals and initiatives. It would provide redevelopment potential for additional medium-density housing in an area with existing infrastructure and amenities and not negative impact the neighborhood. Consideration 2 - Development Potential As noted above, with updated RMF-30 development standards, the subject property could potentially include two to three housing units as a duplex, twin home, single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit, cottage homes, or tiny homes. The current RMF-35 zoning would allow a single-family detached home. Page | 4 Consideration 3 – Compatibility with surrounding properties The subject property is in a multi-family zone and currently zoned RMF-35. Planning staff found that redeveloping the property within RMF-30 design standards would be compatible with surrounding properties. Consideration 4 – The Issue of Spot Zoning The zoning ordinance defines spot zoning as “The process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification materially different and inconsistent with the surrounding area and the adopted city master plan, for the sole benefit of the owner of that property and to the detriment of the rights of other property owners.” (Chapter 21A.62.040, Salt Lake City Code) It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed zoning map amendment is not spot zoning as it is consistent with current master plan policies and the Central Community Master Plan’s future land use map. Both the current and proposed zoning are multi-family residential, and the proposed zoning is not significantly different. ZONING COMPARISON The following table compares building height and setback requirements for the current RMF-35 and proposed RMF-30 zoning districts. RMF-35 (Current)RMF-30 (Proposed) Maximum Building Height 35 feet 30 feet (single-/two family/multi- family residential, row house, sideways row house) 23 feet (cottage development pitched roof (16 feet for flat roof)) 16 feet (tiny house) 30 feet (non-residential) Front Setback 20 feet 20 feet or average of block face Side Setback Corner side yard: 4 feet (single-family detached/two-family). Interior side yard: 4 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other (single-family detached/two-family). For single-family attached no side yard required, however, if one is provided, not less than 4 feet. For twin homes no yard required along one side lot line, 10-foot yard required on the other side. Multi-family requires minimum 10-foot interior side yard. Other permitted and conditional uses require minimum 10-foot side yard on each side. Corner side yard: 10 feet Interior side yard: 4 feet on one side, 10 feet on the other. Rear Setback 25% of lot depth, but not less than 20 feet and need not exceed 25 feet. 20% of lot depth but need not exceed 25 feet (single-/two family/multi- family residential, row house, sideways row house, non-residential) Page | 5 10 feet (cottage development/tiny house) The following table compares minimum lot standards for the current RMF-35 and proposed RMF-30 zoning districts. Land Use RMF-35 (Current) Minimum Lot Area/Width RMF-30 (Proposed) Minimum Lot Area/Width Twin home (townhome, separate lots) 4,000 square feet per unit/25 feet 2,000 square feet per unit/ N/A Two-family (duplex)8,000 square feet/50 feet 2,000 square feet per unit/ N/A Single-family Attached (3+ units)3,000 square feet per unit/50 feet 2,000 square feet per unit/ N/A Single-family Detached 5,000 square feet/50 feet 2,000 square feet per unit/ N/A Multi-family (3-11 Units)9,000 square feet/80 feet 2,000 square feet per unit/ N/A Analysis of Factors Attachment D (pages 16-17) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Generally consistent Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Generally complies The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Generally complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not applicable The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Will require public facility upgrades. Page | 6 City Department Review During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • November 21, 2022-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • December 21, 2022-Petition assigned to Cassie Younger, Senior Planner. • January 25, 2023-Petitioner changed the rezone request to RMF-30 rather than the original RMU zoning considered. • January 26, 2023-Information about petition sent to East Liberty Park and East Central Community Council Chairs, and surrounding neighbors and property owners. • February 6, 2023-Project posted to City website for an online open house. • March 6, 2023-Petitioner presented to East Liberty Park Community Council meeting. • May 12, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing notices sent to interested parties, and residents/property owners. o Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State Public Notice webpage. o Public hearing notice posted on the property. • May 24, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. • May 31, 2023-Ordinance requested from Attorney’s Office. • June 20, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • August 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. Item C4 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:November 7, 2023 RE: 1433, 1435 South State Street, 1420 South Edison Street, and 121 East, Cleveland Avenue Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2022-01183/012184 MOTION 1 (adopt ordinance rezoning the properties, and amending future land use map) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance rezoning the properties and amending the future land use map with the condition that the petitioner enter into a development agreement with the city that requires petitioner to do the following: 1. Replace any dwelling units demolished with at least as many dwelling units as will be demolished; and 2. Include a minimum of 40% of the building’s ground floor façade fronting State Street as active uses allowed in the zoning district, other than parking. All portions of such spaces shall extend a minimum of 25 feet into the building. Optional motion: (adopt ordinance adding properties to list of those with additional building height) I further move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 adding the subject parcels to those that have a permitted building height of up to 65 feet and five stories. Optional motion: (reject ordinance adding properties to list of those with additional building height) I further move that the Council reject an ordinance amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 adding the subject parcels to those that have a permitted building height of up to 65 feet and five stories. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: ____________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ____________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods ________________________ SUBJECT: 1435 State Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2022-01183 & PLNPCM2022-01184) STAFF CONTACT: Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, 801-535-6182 or aaron.barlow@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approves the requested Zoning Map and Master Plan amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Matthew Ratelle, with the Colmena Group representing the property owner, has submitted the following amendment requests: 1.Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2022-01183): The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject properties from CC Commercial Corridor and R-1/5,000 Single-family Residential to the FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood zoning district and to add the northeast corner of State Street and Cleveland Avenue to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 district that allow buildings up to 65 feet in height. 2.Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2022-00184): in order to keep the proposed rezone consistent with the Central Community Master Plan, the applicant is also requesting to amend the master plan designation for the properties in the Central Community Master Plan from Medium Mixed Use and Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use. The project area is approximately 1.52 acres or 66,211.2 square feet includes the following properties: •1435 South State Street •1433 South State Street •1420 South Edison Street •121 East Cleveland Avenue Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:33 MDT)08/08/2023 08/08/2023 A formal development petition has not been submitted at this time. Preliminary Plans, including the applicant’s description of the proposal can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report. HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION Per Chapter 18.97 of City Ordinance, any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the city. The applicant submitted a housing loss mitigation plan, which can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report, that satisfied Housing Loss Mitigation requirements by providing replacement housing. The final plan was evaluated and approved by the Community and Neighborhoods Director, Blake Thomas, prior to the Planning Commission’s review of this petition. Address Current Zoning Proposed Zoning Current Future Land Use Designation Proposed Future Land Use Designation 1435 South State Street CC FB-UN2 Medium Mixed Use High Mixed Use 1433 South State Street CC FB-UN2 Medium Mixed Use High Mixed Use 1420 South Edison Street CC FB-UN2 Medium Mixed Use High Mixed Use 121 East Cleveland Avenue R-1/5,000 FB-UN2 Low Density Residential High Mixed Use Existing Future land use map designations (Central Community Master Plan) Subject properties and current zoning PUBLIC PROCESS: • March 6, 2023 – Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Liberty Wells and Ballpark Community Council. Neither council provided feedback on the proposal. • March 6, 2023 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • March 6, 2023 – The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. • May 18, 2023 – Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. • May 19, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation On May 24, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing. The hearing can be viewed here beginning at 2:26:52. The was one public comment. The individual asked about project details and raised concerns about impacts on the neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval as proposed. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of May 24, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of May 24, 2023 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of May 24, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Mailing List 4) Original Petitions 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning of property located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street from CC Corridor Commercial to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2, amending the zoning of property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2, and amending the Central Community Future Land Use Map) An ordinance pertaining to property located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street, 1420 South Edison Street, and 121 East Cleveland Avenue (collectively, “Property”), amending the zoning map from CC Corridor Commercial to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 for the properties located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street, and amending the zoning map from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 for the property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue all pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01183; and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium Residential/Mixed Use to High Mixed Use for the properties located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street, and from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use for the property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01184. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 24, 2023, regarding applications submitted by Matthew Ratelle of 1435 State Street, LLC (“Applicant”) to amend the zoning map from CC Corridor Commercial to FB- UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 for the properties located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street and amending the zoning map from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 for the property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01183; and amending the Central 2 Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium Residential/Mixed Use to High Mixed Use for the properties located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street, and from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use for the property located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01184. WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said applications; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the parcels located at 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-18-103-014-0000, 16-18-103-011-0000, & 16-18-103-006- 0000), as are more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, are rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2, and the parcel located at 121 East Cleveland Avenue (Tax ID No. 16-18-103-015-0000), also described on Exhibit “A”, is rezoned from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use designation of 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street from Medium 3 Residential/Mixed Use to High Mixed Use, and change the future land use designation of 121 East Cleveland Avenue from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use. SECTION 3. Condition. Approval of this ordinance is conditioned upon the Applicant entering into a development agreement requiring Applicant to replace any dwellings units demolished on the Property with at least as many dwelling units as will be demolished. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code Section 10-3-713. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the condition set forth in Section 3 is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023 Published: ______________. Ordinance rezoning 1433, 1435 S. State, 1420 S. Edison, and 121 E. Cleveland APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney July 10, 2023 4 EXHIBIT “A” Affects properties located at 1433 South State Street Tax ID No. 16-18-103-014-0000 1435 South State Street Tax ID No. 16-18-103-011-0000 1420 South Edison Street Tax ID No. 16-18-103-006-0000 121 East Cleveland Avenue Tax ID No. 16-18-103-015-0000 Legal descriptions of property to be rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2: 1433 South State Street/16-18-103-014-0000 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 6 OF THE CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 12, FIVE ACRE PLAT "A", BIG FIELD SURVEY, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH; THENCE NORTH 150 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 11 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE EAST 15 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 12 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 150 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 17 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE WEST 15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1435 South State Street/16-18-103-011-0000 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2, BLOCK 6, CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN BLOCK 12, FIVE ACRE PLAT "A", BIG FIELD SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0°02'11" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF STATE STREET 252.10 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 11 OF SAID BLOCK 6; THENCE NORTH 89°54'32" EAST 150.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF A 15.00 FOOT ALLEY; THENCE SOUTH 0°02'1 l" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 252.10 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF CLEVELAND A VENUE AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE SOUTH 89°54'32" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 150.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO, BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 15, BLOCK 6, CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN BLOCK 12, FIVE ACRE PLAT "A", BIG FIELD SURVEY AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89°54'32" WEST 142.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF A 15.00 FOOT ALLEY; THENCE NORTH 0°02'11" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 100.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 12 OF SAID BLOCK 6; THENCE NORTH 89°54'32" EAST 142.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF EDISON STREET; THENCE SOUTH 0°02'11" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1420 South Edison Street/16-18-103-006-0000 LOTS 16 AND 17, BLOCK 6, CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE Contains 1.40 acres, more or less. 5 Legal descriptions of property to be rezoned from R-1/5000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2: 121 East Cleveland Avenue/16-18-103-015-0000 COMMENCING 107 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 6, CAPITOL AVENUE ADDITION, THENCE WEST 35 FEET; THENCE NORTH 102.1 FEET; THENCE EAST 35 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 102.1 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH ALL THE VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON THE WEST Contains 0.12 acres, more or less. 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City code to include additional land area eligible for additional building height.) An ordinance amending Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-01183 pertaining to additional land area eligible for additional building height. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on May 24, 2023 to consider an application submitted by Matthew Ratelle of 1435 State Street, LLC to amend Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City Code to expand the area eligible for additional building height; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3. That Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is amended as follows: 3. Multi-family Residential, Storefront, and Vertical Mixed-use building form standards: TABLE 21A.27.050.C.3 Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Multi-family Residential/Storefront/Vertical Mixed Use 2 H Height Maximum height of 50’.1 All heights measured from established grade. Rooftop use is permitted and required railings and walls necessary to comply with building code requirements are permitted to encroach beyond the maximum height up to 5’. GH Ground Floor Height Minimum ground floor height of 14’. F Front and Corner Side Yard Setback Ground Floor Residential Uses: A minimum of 10’ and a maximum of 20’. Ground Floor occupied by retail, restaurants, taverns, brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities: no minimum is required, provided no doors open into the right of way. A maximum setback of up to 10’ is allowed. All other ground floor uses: A minimum of 5’ and a maximum 10’. The maximum may be increased due to existing utility easements in which case the maximum setback shall be at the edge of the easement. This requirement may be modified through Design Review process (Chapter 21A.59). Provided front or corner side yard shall provide one tree for every 30 linear foot of front or corner side yard property line. The mature tree canopy must cover at least 50% of the required yard area and sidewalk area. S Interior Side Yard Minimum of 6’ required, except when an interior side yard is abutting a property in a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 35’ or less, then the minimum shall be 15’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a different zoning district shall be counted towards the minimum setback. R Rear Yard The rear yard minimum shall be 10’, except when rear yard is adjacent to a zoning district with a maximum permitted building height of 30’ or less, then the minimum is 20’. For the purpose of this regulation, an alley that is a minimum of 10’ in width that separates a subject property from a property in a different zoning district shall be counted towards the minimum setback. GU Ground Floor Use Requirements 900 South: The ground floor use space facing 900 South shall be limited to the following uses: retail goods establishments, retail service establishments, public service portions of businesses, restaurants, taverns/brewpubs, bar establishments, art galleries, theaters, or performing art facilities for a depth of 25’. Amenity space for the occupants of the building shall account for no more than 25% of the length of the ground floor space. E Ground Floor Dwelling Entrances Ground floor dwelling units adjacent to a street must have an allowed entry feature. See Table 21A.27.030.B for allowed entry features. U Upper Level Stepback When adjacent to a lot in a zoning district with a maximum building height of 30’ or less, the first full floor of the building above 30’ shall stepback 10’ from the building facade at finished grade along the side or rear yard that is adjacent to the lot in the applicable 3 zoning district. This regulation does not apply when a lot in a different zoning district is separated from the subject parcel by a street or alley. MW Midblock Walkway As part of the city’s plan for the downtown area, it is intended that midblock walkways be provided to facilitate pedestrian movement within the area. The city has adopted the Downtown Plan that includes a midblock walkway map and establishes a need for such walkways as the Downtown grows. Because the districts within the downtown area allow maximum building heights that exceeds those of other districts in the city, the requirement for the midblock walkway is important to maintain the overall scale and pedestrian nature of the downtown. This requirement implements the city’s Downtown Plan and provides visual relief from the additional height that is available in these zone districts when compared to the remainder of the city. All buildings constructed after the effective date hereof within this district shall conform to this officially adopted plan for midblock walkways, in addition to the following standards: 1. Any new development shall provide a midblock walkway if a midblock walkway on the subject property has been identified in a master plan that has been adopted by the city. 2. The following standards apply to the midblock walkway: a. The midblock walkway must be a minimum of 15’ wide and include a minimum 6’ wide unobstructed path. b. The midblock walkway may be incorporated into the building provided it is open to the public. A sign shall be posted indicating that the public may use the walkway. c. The following building encroachments are permitted in midblock walkway. Under no circumstances shall a mid block walkway be entirely covered. (1) Colonnades; (2) Staircases; (3) Balconies – All balconies must be located at the third story or above; (4) Building overhangs and associated cantilever - These coverings may be between 9 and 14’ above the level of the sidewalk. They shall provide a minimum depth of coverage of 6’ and project no closer to the curb than 3’; (5) Skybridge – A single skybridge is permitted. All skybridges must be located at the third, fourth, or fifth stories; and (6) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offers refuge from weather and/or provide publicly accessible usable space. 4 BF Building Forms Per Lot Multiple buildings may be built on a single lot provided all of the buildings have frontage on a street. All buildings shall comply with all applicable standards. OS Open Space Area As required in Subsection 21A.27.030.C.1 “Open Space Area.” DS Design Standards See Section 21A.27.030 and Chapter 21A.37 for other applicable building configuration and design standards. Footnotes: 1. Additional Building Height Regulations. Properties listed in this footnote shall have a permitted building height of up to 65’ and 5 stories. a. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of West Temple at 800 South or 900 South; b. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of 200 West at 700 South, 800 South or 900 South; c. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of West Temple at Fayette Avenue; d. For legally existing parcels or lots as of January 1, 2023 located on the corners of 300 West at 800 South or 900 South; e. On the southeast corner of 1300 South and State Street. f. On the northeast corner of Cleveland Avenue and State Street. g. As indicated on the following map: 5 SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR 6 ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. Ordinance amending Subsection 21A.27.050.C.3 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:___________________________ By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney July 10, 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 3) MAILING LIST 4) ORIGINAL PETITIONS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: PLNPCM2022-01183 & PLNPCM2022-01184 January 17, 2023 Applications submitted. February 3, 2023 Petition assigned to staff. March 6, 2023 Petition routed for Department Review Comments. March 6, 2023 Staff sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations to the Community Councils. March 6, 2023 Neighbors within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. March 6, 2023 Project posted for an online open house through April 28, 2023. April 28, 2023 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. May 18, 2023 Public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. May 19, 2023 Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. May 24, 2023 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendments. June 23, 2023 Draft ordinance requested from City Attorney’s office. July 10, 2023 Draft ordinance received from City Attorney’s office. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2022-01183 and PLNPCM2022-01184 – 1435 State Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments – Salt Lake City has received these amendment requests, specified below, from Matthew Ratelle with the Colmena Group representing the property owner. The intent of these amendment requests is to accommodate a redevelopment proposal to be submitted at a later date. The project is within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. A. Master Plan Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2022-01184) 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street –Amend the Central Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use designation from Medium Mixed Use to High Mixed Use. 121 East Cleveland Avenue – Amend the Central Community Master Plan’s Future Land Use designation from Low Density Residential to High Mixed Use. B. Zoning Map Amendment (Case number PLNPCM2022-01183) 1433 & 1435 South State Street and 1420 South Edison Street – rezone from CC Commercial Corridor to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood and allow buildings up to 65 feet in height at Northeast Corner of Cleveland Avenue and State Street. 121 East Cleveland Avenue – rezone from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Aaron Barlow at 801.535.6182 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by e-mail at aaron.barlow@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com, by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2022-01183 and PLNPCM2022-011840999. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. MAILING LIST NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP JOHN N NIKOLS FAM TRNIKOLS, MICHAEL J; TR 2256 S LAKELINE CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 MORSE LAURELWOOD PROPERTIES LC 223 W 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 CATALAN PROPERTIES, L.L.C 1383 S MAJOR ST #E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SOUZA LAND LLC 2230 DOC HOLLIDAY DR PARK CITY UT 84060 FOUNDRY PROPERTIES LLC 722 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 WASATCH INN, LLC 1009 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 1438 S PROPERTIES LLC 3424 S STATE ST #A SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 SOUZA LAND LLC 2230 DOC HOLLIDAY DR PARK CITY UT 84060 GJACK ENTERPRISES LLC 59 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1435 STATE STREET LLCCANYON RIM SHOPPING CENTER, LL 1201 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 GALLEGOS, JOSEPH M 127 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HALL, JULIEANNE; TR(JH FAM TRUST) 131 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 BRADBURY, CHRISTOPHER W 135 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1435 STATE STREET LLCCANYON RIM SHOPPING CENTER, LL 1201 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 STATE BUILDING OWNERSHIP AUTHORITY 450 N STATE ST #4110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 1435 STATE STREET LLC & CANYON RIM SHOPPING CENTER, LLC 1201 E WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 RASMUSSEN, L NEIL & SALLY A; TRS 7988 S STAUNING CV COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 ATK, LLC 1017 W HIDDEN COVE DR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84123 SUES ALTERATION UT INC 1441 E 2100 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 NGUYEN, VINH; JTVO, LOAN; JT 1774 W 3500 S WEST VALLEY UT 84119 MOUNTAIN SPORTS PROPERTIES LLC 1435 S STATE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TARASEVICH, ROBIN; JTTARASEVICH, SUZANNE; JT 124 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SUGIYAMA, KEN TET AL 132 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ROGERS, BRENDA S 1452 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SCHNEIDER, JEFFREY C 1456 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CASE YONETANI TRET AL 1466 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 1470 S EDISON ST., A SERIESOF MAZR HAUS, LLC 1126 E GILMER DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 MID TOWN, LLC 1740 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 LEWIS, KATELYN 1367 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST #1900 PORTLAND OR 97232 OATWAY, DAVIS &BINNEBOSE, BRIANNA; JT 1409 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SEAR‐PITTS, SHANTELL; JTSEAR, SUSAN; JT 1419 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SPIN PROPERTIES, LLC 1421 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HAPPY FAMILY HOME, LLC 956 E GALENA DR WHITE CITY UT 84094 BLAIR, SCOTT A 1431 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 LI, ZHONG XIN 145 E COATSVILLE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 FALKNER, CATHY‐LIN 1404 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 JCOR PROPERTIES, LLC 721 N MAIN ST LAYTON UT 84041 HATA, GEORGE M. & KIYOKO 1420 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 KINNEY, EMILY‐IONE 165 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MACKIN TRET AL 171 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MICHAEL READ FORDHAM REV TRET AL 3567 E EASTCLIFF DR MILLCREEK UT 84124 STATE OF UTAH DIVISION OFFACILITIES CONSTRUCTION MGMNT 450 N STATE ST #4110 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 HOWCRAFT, WAYNE A &JOHNNA; JT 150 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 LEE, MATTHEW E; JTCURTIS, NATASIA A; JT 156 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MURPHY, AARON G 162 E CLEVELAND AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 THOR UT XYZ, LLC 2058 W 8870 S WEST JORDAN UT 84088 BEETON, SHANE &ANDERSON, HAILEY; JT 1955 E PRINCETON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 BAKKEN, JENNIFER L 1455 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 EVANS, LINDA D L; JTMANN, CARRIE E; JT 1463 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 PORTER, WILLIAM S &TINA; JT 1469 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 VAN DE GRAAF, KARA A 1458 S 200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 Current Occupant 1313 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1328 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1393 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1397 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1401 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1405 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1374 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1382 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1388 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1392 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1400 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1410 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1416 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1438 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1411 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1421 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1420 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1435 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1385 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1433 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 121 E CLEVELAND AVE Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 58 E CLEVELAND AVE Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1458 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1460 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1470 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1446 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1445 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1470 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1465 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1465 S STATE ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1373 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1425 S EDISON ST Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1376 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1410 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1396 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1402 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 1390 S 200 E Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 166 E CLEVELAND AVE Salt Lake City 84115 UT Current Occupant 168 E CLEVELAND AVE Salt Lake City 84115 UT 4. ORIGINAL PETITIONS Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/18/2023 14:06 Brian PETERSON SLC's Local Businesses - Undermined by Failures of City Leadership https://youtu.be/27u3X5Wq41M?si=CtPJjKuAnXr8C1gK 10/18/2023 15:24 Kimball Young (EXTERNAL) K Young To City Council and Mayor / D6 Dan, Here is my statement. Kimball. **Attachment 1 10/18/2023 15:49 Meghann Kopecky "Affordable" Housing - Do Not Support Dear Council Members, It is disappointing when neighbors and community members express their opinions about Mayor Mendenhall's Affordable Housing Plan and not have the hundreds of comments in opposition be taken into consideration. The original plan was not supported by neighborhoods all throughout the city and citizens expressed their concerns (utilities, parking, water, changing established neighborhoods) yet the "new" affordable housing plan doesn't address any of these concerns. If anything, it makes things worse. For example: 1. Lessening the parking requirements (and I promise, because it is close to transit will NOT encourage more transit usage...our city isn't set up that way) 2. Not addressing how to enforce the new policies-not detailing how the city will ensure affordable housing is actually utilized by those who qualify 3. Not ensuring that historical neighborhoods keep their family-centric status (4-plexes are not for families) 4. Water---more people means more water usage 5. Density does NOT make things more affordable City after city across the US has tried to implement this type of band aid---and it has shown to not work. I completely agree that affordable housing is a serious issue, but a one-size-fits-all-solution isn't the way forward. I implore you to take our comments seriously---residents who love their neighborhoods, who want a creative solution forward---but want to keep families living next to them. Thank you, Meghann Kopecky Highland Park 10/18/2023 15:50 Jacqueline Sundstrand Adorable Housing Incentive Plan is Flawed Good evening, I live at REDACTED, and I'm writing to you about my concerns about the adorable Housing Incentive Plan. I'm all for affordable housing but it feels like this plan is incentivizing dense housing, not affordable housekng That is a problem for me because it still doesn't help the people that need it most. How do we make sure developers are not trying to make a quick buck? How do we make sure rent is ACTUALLY affordable, aka, the family can still afford to save money for a better life on top of paying rent, paying off student debt, feed themselves and their children. At the end of the day, rent and house prices are economically driven. I do not understand how dense housing addresses that issue and wait further explanation from the council. Thank you, Jacqueline Sundstrand 10/18/2023 15:51 Grant Williams "Affordable" housing issue Hello, I would like to state my vehement dislike of the plan the city council is trying to pass allowing more 4- plexes and less parking. Despite what is always touted about this being a "walking" community, this is just not true. Every adult renter will have a car, with very few exceptions. Why are we willing to ruin our lovely old neighborhoods and turn them into slums? More and more homeowners will move south and our city will continue to degrade. Jamming more housing units in is just not the answer. Please consider the people who have lived here for years and are watching things crumble. You are supposed to be representing the wishes of the people who have elected you and homeowners who pay the property taxes to fund our schools. I urge you to keep our city beautiful, and not turn it into a high rise rental jungle. Thank you, Joni Williams 10/18/2023 15:53 Bonnie Chavez Affordable Housing Incentive This is a bad idea that only lines contractors pockets and ruins healthy beautiful neighborhoods. I absolutely do not want this passed. It is detrimental to my house, my house's value and my neighborhood. No on Affordable Housing Plan Been part of this neighborhood for 64 years. I say NO Bernice Chavez Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/18/2023 15:57 Kristina's Aguirre Opposing Affordable Housing Incentive Plan I am writing to oppose Salt Lake City’s Affordable Housing Incentive Plan as it is currently written. It is a destructive idea that every single familyhome in Salt Lake should be a target for demolition; to be replaced with 4-plexes. This is only going to generate more rentals. I cannot understand why this Council has such dislike for our single-family neighborhoods and the homeowners who live in them; even calling them privileged. This political ideology is only going to hurt our most vulnerable neighborhoods – those on the west side. The idea that this plan could move forward waiving the simple concerns like parking is just a recipe for disaster and the creation of frustrated and angry neighborhoods Kristina Huebner 10/18/2023 15:58 Don Brown Vote no on density! Dear City Council, Please vote no on more density in SLC in place of single family homes. It is one of the few large cities in the US that has preserved single family neighborhoods. That is worth saving! These homes are largely owner occupied. If we are going to allow large corporations to buy up our housing, that will leave us with a city of renters. Renters are less incentivized to contribute to their neighborhoods and it shows in the way the properties are cared for, in the quality of schools and it puts our city on the same circling drain pattern that every other big city is on. I have lived in big cities in the US and Europe. We do not want that in SLC! I know the pressure from real estate developers must be tremendous. They have a lot to gain but the city has a lot to lose. Please don’t bend! Represent us! Thank you! Don Brown SLC resident 10/18/2023 16:00 Elizabeth Kitchens Affordable Housing Incentive Proposal Dear Council Members: I wish to place of record my strong opposition to the affordable housing incentives proposal. I live in the Highland Park neighborhood of Salt Lake City. I submitted a comment letter last May opposing the proposal and the current proposal is not an improvement. Historically single-family neighborhoods are ill suited for multi-family dwellings due to narrow streets, limited parking and older infrastructure such as sewer and water lines. Moreover, multi-family dwellings are already permissible if properly approved through the planning department so this proposal is simply allowing shortcuts for developers. Incentivizing destruction of existing homes and neighborhoods to construct multi-family dwellings without appropriate oversight by the planning and zoning department is an abandonment of the legal responsibilities placed on government to assure orderly, sensible development across our city. And it is widely known and even the council acknowledges that this proposal will not improve the housing situation. It doesn’t matter if it’s luxury townhomes or “affordable” housing – multi-family dwelling should not be rubberstamped. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Kitchens 10/18/2023 16:01 Amanda Andrus Affordable Housing I would first like to start out commending the committee asking for input and hopefully this can help come to a conclusions in order to work out reasonable options to increase affordable housing. However homeowners have concerns that we would very much like to address. I would like to address my biggest concerns and that is following safety guidelines for making the neighborhood streets in all areas passable…especially passable for fire engines and rescue vehicles . Our narrow streets from Alden through Dearborn will be impassible for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to get through . It is tight just getting my car through with the few cars parked on the street… and my car is much smaller than emergency vehicles. There is a lot of street parking, and if any of these streets have 4 plexes and each home has one car… and no driveway.. that will become very unsafe. I ask that a study be done on the width of each street to determine when both sides of the street are full of cars..does this leave room for larger emergency vehicles. I applaud the committee for wanting to find some resolution for homelessness. I just ask that certain things, such as a drive way or a park way would be included. I believe this is a fair request and I hope it is considered as decisions are going to be made. Sometimes the best negotiations are when both sides don’t walk away getting all that they ask. Negotiations work much better when BOTH sides give up something. Again I would like to thank all of the work you all are doing Best Amanda Andrus c Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/18/2023 16:02 Barb Schultz Affordable Housing I feel like this is being forced down our throats! First of all, do you really think you can solve this issue by putting some 4-plexes in a well established historical neighborhood?We are a neighborhood of homeowners that care about our neighbors and our community. We already have way too many cars on our street and your proposal does not require there to be any parking restrictions to accommodate the additional cars that this will bring to our streets. How do you plan on enforcing being within the guidelines of “Affordable Housing”? What if someone gets a raise and is no longer under those guidelines? How will this be enforced? How will you regulate the number of people that can live in these units? It really sounds like a horrible plan and not very well thought out. It will be such a disruption in our neighborhood as we know homeowners take much more pride in their homes as opposed to renters. With all of the apartments being built why are there none designated for your affordable housing plan? Regulating would be so much more efficient and there would be parking for the tenants. I realize that it wouldn’t be lucrative for developers to do this but am deeply concerned that all we are trying to do is to line the developers pockets. I am deeply opposed to this plan. Barb Schultz 10/18/2023 16:03 Christianne Valentiner 4-Plex Rezoning, Under the Guise of Affordable Housing… I am a resident of the Highland Park neighborhood in Salt Lake City. I am an advocate of affordable house, and believe that all humans should be housed. Salt Lake City, along with the valley, is experiencing a housing crisis- I acknowledge this freely. While this crisis is in full force, developers have continually been granted the rights to build condo/apartment complexes, many with insufficient parking, and that are high-end to maximize profits. When low income housing is needed more than ever, developers and the city’s tax revenue have been prioritized. This is one of the biggest factors for my adamant dissent when it comes to rezoning single family residences, that are historic and relatively modest in size, and giving free reign to developers to dismantle and destroy neighborhoods, pushing invested individuals and families out and allowing for developers to buy up homes, flip them into 4-plexes with extremely insufficient parking, and make money with no intentions of creating “affordable housing units”. There are no protections. These neighborhoods have old infrastructure. They cannot handle a massive population increase. If the city really wants to get behind true affordable housing… -Mandate that 30% of each new condo/apartment building that is built (or even existing buildings built within the last 3 years) to be truly affordable and rent controlled. Why isn’t this already happening? -Build a fixed number of units across EVERY neighborhood (depending on size) in Salt Lake City, to spread out the development and impact, rather than rezoning a few neighbors that will take a significant and permanent hit. - Ensure protections and agreements with developers that the 4-plexes that are built equitably throughout all neighborhoods are 100% rent controlled to solidify that they are affordable long term. -Support tax payers/residents of Salt Lake City who want to make our city a diverse and amazing place to live- don’t push residents out by allowing developers to buy every home that goes on the markets to be bought up and turned into a money making machine, rather than motivating individuals and families to invest in our communities. Please reconsider. Please think of residents. Please personalize this. Our neighborhood welcomes low-income housing options, but please do it ethically, morally and responsibly. Please spread this out instead to dismantling our neighborhood and helping developers get even richer. That may help Salt Lake City’s tax base, but it definitely doesn’t solve the housing crisis. 10/18/2023 16:04 Stephanie Zimmerman Zoning changes Council Members, please reconsider the zoning changes to our communities. Stephanie Zimmerman Highland Park/Sugarhouse Resident Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/18/2023 16:05 Tim Valentiner NOT SUPPORTING 4-Plex Rezoning I am a resident of the Highland Park neighborhood in Salt Lake City, and have lived here with our family for 14 years. I happily welcome having more affordable housing in our city, but this is not a reasonable solution that won't cause more problems than solutions - particularly given the proposal to have it as concentrated as it is in one area (i.e. our neighborhood) and without any requirements for parking, for example Rezoning in the way that is being proposed, and allowing developers to capitalize on this opportunity without thinking of the repercussions for the current residents is irresponsible. And especially if there are not rent-controls put in place and ensured that these units would actually meet what should be the requirements of rezoning to allow them: affordable, rent-controlled living units that allow for residents to have more affordable housing options or even subsidized housing. These neighborhoods have old infrastructure that has not been well maintained by the city, including still very narrow streets without already extremely limited parking. These lots are also on average quite small and the notion of having 4-plexes allowed to be built is very impractical. If the city is truly trying to accomplishing affordable housing, while not overburdening our neighborhood, then please set limits on how many multi-units can be built in a certain area and please take into account the size of the lot being a certain size to justify have multi-units built rather than an arbitrary allowance. This plan needs to spread out across the entire city and not concentrated in one neighborhood. This is unreasonable and the easy solution. Please reconsider this proposal and take into account the actual residents that are living in this area and will be greatly affected by a plan that is not just or ethical as currently written. Thank you for your time, 10/18/2023 16:06 Wayne JOHNSON "Affordable Housing" in Sugar House / Highland Park Dear Sirs, dear Council Members, Not only is your plan for so called "affordable housing" in Sugar House / Highland Park abusive to present residents, it is utterly destructive to the integrity and charming character of the neighborhoods targeted. Your proposal is, all too clearly, repulsively hierarchical: Protections have been bought by wealthier neighborhoods (Harvard / Yale) under the guise of "historical preservation." You are, again, kneeling to the power of MONEY. The rapacious developers who stand to profit from your proposal are worse than predatory. They are short sighted and only interested in profit. You ALL know this, yet you are all too happy to pass off their desire to profit by ruining yet more neighborhoods under the guise of an "affordable housing" movement. Let's, instead, build ADUs and atrociously ugly six story apartment buildings in the backyards of those living in 5,000 sq. ft. or larger homes along Wasatch Blvd, and up in the Avenues and in Federal Heights. Did anyone think, for a moment, that there is ample space TO THE WEST for "affordable housing," where such "affordable housing" already exists? I have lived in San Francisco and Los Angeles (and Minneapolis and Kansas City), I moved here so as not to live in another Tenderloin or Compton. This is what you are creating. BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CITY WHERE THERE IS AMPLE SPACE AND ALREADY ESTABLISHED AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEIGHBORHOODS. Sincerely yours, Wayne Douglas Johnson 10/18/2023 18:10 Wally Cromar short term rentals and horrible landlords hi there, Is the council going to address airbnbs as an issue that is creating some of the gaps in affordable housing? i wokld suggest we adopt what NYC has done and outlaw airbnbs so that these homes continue to be used as viable long term housing by residents. I also would implore you to look at this issue prior to making it easier to build additional dwellings these will in most cases be turned into short term vacation rentals not long term housing. Also, there has been a massive influx on out of state or out of country buyers buying single family homes and converting them into overpriced rentals that then are lived in by large numbers of unrelated adults. The enforcement teams do nit acrively enforce occupancy laws nor do they enforce the oermits required to be a landlord in the city. please address this the neighborhoods are turning to trash and are not viable for families anymore. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/19/2023 18:48 Kathy Adams James Woods, Kem C Gardner Housing analyst The report presented at the Oct City Council Work Session by James Woods focused on the real reasons we have a shortage of affordable housing in Utah and it is because the supply side (builders, developers and related industries) receive all the incentives and tax-credit programs, but the demand side -- the people, the renters, the priced out of the market buyers -- receive nothing from the state, no funding programs or tax advantages. Stop talking about what builders need to build more, and start talking about what citizens need to affiord homes. In Massachusettes they have a tranfer tax which is exactly what we have here when we buy a car, only it's on home purchases. It's a very small 1/10 of 1% tax on home buyers that would produce on-going money to help with rental assistance, and down payment assistance. Last year in Utah there was $25 BILLION in real estate sales -- 1/10 0f 1% of that (in one year would be $75m) would be allocated for afforable housing. It would be a game changer. There actually was a Prop 123 proposing 1% of income tax going for citizen's efforts to be able to buy homes (yield $300m/yr) but it never passed. Why? Because the 26 out of 29 state senators are developers. Time to stop figuring out how to prop up the millionaire developers and start helping the demand side -- the people. 10/20/2023 7:55 Jordan Alexanderson (EXTERNAL) Concerns over the homeless crisis in Salt Lake City - D2 Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Salt Lake City, who has witnessed the worsening of the homeless crisis in our city. I appreciate the efforts that the city has taken to address this issue, such as fencing off the area in front of the Rio Grande Hotel and enforcing a no camping policy. However, I am dismayed to see that this has only displaced the homeless population to other parts of the city, such as the block in front of my apartment complex which is only one block north of the Rio Grande hotel (55S 500W) This area used to be a safe and pleasant place to live, with open parks where children can play, people can go on runs, and dogs can enjoy the outdoors. However, now it is becoming increasingly unsafe, unsanitary, and uncomfortable for the residents here. Just this morning, I had to step off the sidewalk to avoid multiple tents, and in doing so I found several needles and a large amount of trash. I no longer feel safe in front of my own home, and I am getting increasingly frustrated with the city. I urge you to take immediate and effective action to address this situation, and to provide adequate and humane solutions for the homeless people in our city. I understand that this is a complex and challenging issue, but it cannot be ignored or postponed any longer. The homeless people deserve dignity and support, and the residents deserve peace and security. Some possible actions that I would like to see from the city are: * Expanding the availability and accessibility of shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing for the homeless people. * Providing more outreach services, such as mental health care, substance abuse treatment, job training, and case management for the homeless people. * Implementing more preventive measures, such as rent assistance, eviction prevention, and affordable housing for low-income people who are at risk of becoming homeless. * Collaborating with other stakeholders, such as nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, businesses, and residents, to create a comprehensive and coordinated plan to end homelessness in our city. * Increasing the enforcement of public health and safety regulations, such as cleaning up trash, removing needles, and prohibiting camping on sidewalks and public spaces. I hope that you will take my concerns seriously and act swiftly to improve the situation. I love this city and I want it to be a place where everyone can live with dignity and respect. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Jordan Alexanderson, concerned citizen. 10/20/2023 9:28 Steven Brown Homeless encampments We live in the Artspace building right behind the new temporary sanctioned camp being built. We were promised that our neighborhood would not be stuck between a santioned camp and an unsanctioned one. It seems that's not the case. The homeless are going to be allowed to occupy the hrass atras in front of our business and our apartments. We have a hard time getting our customers to visit our business this just makes it worse.10/20/2023 12:53 Tara Rollins Thriving In Place Website Who ever put the thriving in place website together, thank them. Love that it is a living and moving Report. Well done. Tara Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/20/2023 12:55 Heather Wilkins Cleveland Ave MY HOME IS NOT FOR SALE, OR TO BE REZONED. I bought my home in 2018. I plan on raising my daughter abd seeing her through college. My home is not for sale or to be put into a Rezone block for apartments use. Salt Lake City council and Mayor needs to respect the residents In Place in homes, that create peace and value to our city. My home is not a property on the auction block. My neighbors feel the sane. If you want to build apartments, use existing buildings outside of the exhisting homes and neighborhoods that are still being housed families. Homes are are for a reason. If it takes a lawsuit to make my point, so be in. There are attorneys waiting and willing. Im.not leaving!! 10/20/2023 12:57 Jan Hemming Comments on the Affordable Housing Incentive Plan If this Council approves the Affordable Housing Incentive Plan it is essentially hoping that two things are true: 1. We can zone our way to more affordable housing by allowing more height, fewer parking places, and more diverse housing types. That’s the essence of this plan. 2. Secondly, adding density will make housing more affordable. One is wishful thinking and the other is simply false. Even the experts agree. Go back and watch the exchange between one of the largest affordable housing developers in the city and the Planning Commission this past March. What you will hear is “this is not a panacea.” “The going will be slow” because of economics and market conditions. **Strike One to zoning as a solution. Regarding, density as a strategy to improve affordability. Research from the London School of Economics, Harvard, UCLA, the University of British Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania shows density actually increases housing prices and rents – without exception. Their data was collected and analyzed not only in the United States but around the world. Density does not equal affordability. **Strike two for density as a solution. **Strike Three is the destructive idea that every single-family home in Salt Lake should be a target for demolition; to be replaced with 4-plexes. This is only going to generate more rentals in a city with the lowest number of family housing units in the region. I don’t understand why this Council and city have such a low regard for our single-family neighborhoods and the homeowners and families who live in them. This political ideology is only going to hurt our most vulnerable neighborhoods – those on the west side. Affordable housing yes. The Affordable Housing Incentive Plan no. Respectfully Jan Hemming Chair, Yalecrest Neighborhood Council 10/20/2023 12:58 Jen Colby Personal Comment in opposition re: Hardage Hospitality Zoning & Map Amendment for Planning Commission Dear Planning Staff and Commissioners, Attached are my personal comments regarding an agenda item on the 10-25-23 hearing list, Hardage Hospitality. Andy, please add these into the packet if at all possible or if not, forward to the Commission dropbox for the meeting. Sincerely, Jen Colby, MPA District 4 / ECC resident ** Attachment 210/20/2023 13:00 Jen Colby Comments to PC in support of Douglas Ward/McGillis School zoning & map amendment Dear Meagan, Attached are my personal comments in support of the Douglas Ward/McGillis School zoning & map amendment that is on the PC agenda for a hearing on 10-25. Please include these in the staff report if at all possible (apologies for sending so late) or if not, add to the meeting files / dropbox for review by the Commissioners. Sincerely, Jen Colby, MPA District 4/ECC resident ** Attachment 3 10/21/2023 16:28 Kathy Adams Own In Ogden program should be replicated in SLC This is the program SLC should be replicating https://www.ogdencity.com/259/Own-in-Ogden We need to stop seeing the solution to affordable housing as more-more-more building and giving developers and builders the advantages. Time to care for the citizens, and Ogden has figured this out. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/23/2023 16:35 Robert MOORE 1/2 : Affordable Housing Incentives (Spelling Corrected version…) Affordable Housing I am against the proposed housing amendment as it stands. My 4 reasons are: • It’s destructive to single family neighborhoods. • It creates unequal property rights • Parking and traffic safety issues. • Infrastructure costs not addressed. Here is the explanation of my concerns: Destructive to family neighborhoods. As a city, we have spent over a century building wonderful bedroom neighborhoods so there is a place for families to make a permanent home, build relationships and keep this part of our diverse city strong. If we destroy this or for that matter, any of the other styles, cultures or sectors of our city we diminish our city. Of course I am absolutely not saying families don’t live in multi family housing because they do. But you can find study after study that demonstrates that the time families spend in any given multi family housing is far shorter and more transitional than those who reside in a single family housing. Stability is a big part what makes our already shrinking single family neighborhoods so desirable. Why do we want to destroy it?? Unequal property rights. Giving rights to one property owner that the next door neighbor does not have is just flat wrong. If you want to allow duplex, triplex and fourplex in neighborhoods then they must be held to the same requirements as the existing property owners. Giving extended building limit lines, not requiring onsite parking, no building materials requirement and giving a faster less stringent approval process is absurd. There are many many current examples of duplexes etc amidst single family dwellings where they complied with the same requirements as single family dwellings and it works just great. We have several around us. Parking and traffic safety issues. This deserves special attention! Adding this level of density will make terribly unsafe circumstances for kids in our neighborhoods. For example… If you had a single family block with 15 houses and an average of 2.5 cars per house where they have parking onsite, you get an occasional car parked on the street. Visibility driving down the street still allows for drivers to see kids and for kids to see cars coming. Now let’s look at what happens with this proposal… If you allow four-plexes at say 1.5 cars per unit with no onsite parking you have 60 units and 90 cars on that same block. Overlooking the parking nightmare you create (which will be substantial!!), it will be a pitfall of blind spots with non stop traffic up and down that same street. Don’t forget because we as citizens of Salt Lake City have not forgotten that as a city you just made a “huge” point of trying to “keep kids in our neighborhoods safe” in reaction to the fatal accident at 2100 east 1300 south by spending over $2,000,000 to take measures. Now in one swoop you want to bring a far worse danger to our kids on every single neighborhood street with at least a 4 fold increase of traffic. This it not a busy intersection, this is where our kids live and play. It’s a terrible thing to do to our city. Infrastructure and support Costs. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/23/2023 16:35 Robert MOORE 2/2 CONTINUED!! : Affordable Housing Incentives I am wondering if anyone has actually consider the cost to support such a wide spread increase of density that is spread over such a broad area? Example … Take that same street of 15 dwelling units. If you increase it to 60 dwellings then are the capacities of the existing sewer lines even able to handle this increase, what about water, power and gas. We can add to this the other support systems the city provided like fire, police medical, trash collections etc. How many new police officers do we need to hired just to keep even with what ratio we have currently? Keep in mind the increase amount the city actually gets from property tax is more than it receives now but nothing near what the ongoing cost to support this and or to provide the capital needed for the necessary upgrades in infrastructure. Is this even being discussed and who is going to accept responsibility for this economic problem? I don’t need to go into details about the fact that the City is not prepared or willing to commit resources to police all the developers to insure they are in fact, providing any of these new dwellings as affordable. You’re promising something to us as citizens that you have no means or intention of delivering and we as citizens just have to suffer for your political advantage. The developers will love you however. For these reasons I am adamantly opposed to this being approved! Bob Moore iBob On Oct 21, 2023, at 4:25 PM, ROBERT MOOR0E wrote: I don’t even need to go into details about the fact that the City is not prepared or willing to commit resources to police all the developers to insure they are in fact, providing any of these new dwellings as affordable. You’re promising something to us as citizens that you have no means or intention of delivering and we as citizens just have to suffer for your political advantage. The developers will love you however. 10/23/2023 16:40 Becky Allred Liberty Park 43 years paying taxes in downtown Salt Lake Watched Liberty park become a wonderful, family park Used to walk the park with neighbors every morning Invested heavily in West Liberty My children also purchased homes in West Liberty Served on advisory council for Mayor Corradini Husband served on CDAC Commitee I helped facilitate the city buying Allen Park We’ve seen drugs, killings, drive bus, and slum lords. Always worked with law enforcement and the city to make the area better. And I have never seen the area and the park in worse circumstances. Does this picture entice you to take your family to the park? I am disgusted, disappointed, and sad. It is your job to serve the people of Salt Lake. Something needs to change. Becky Allred **Attachment 4 10/25/2023 10:46 Lisa McBride Frustrated with Construction All Over the City Lisa is frustrated with all the road construction in the City. She has children that she takes to two different schools and feels like she runs into construction every day. She also feels that when construction on major corridors is planned, all residents should be made aware as they may impact their daily travels. An example is 900 E when it was narrowed. In addition, she has attended some open houses and planning meetings, and feels that resident's concerns are not taken into account. An example is a roundabout at 2000 E that no one in her neighborhood supported, yet it was constructed. She feels the City should manage all construction projects better to allow traffic to flow throughout the City. 10/27/2023 8:14 Anonymous Constituent downtown homeless sweeps to whom it may concern, you giys might seem loud and proud for removig aome homeless people of the street when in reality you look like a bunch of heartless coldless monsters. you guys seem proud for doing your sweeps when your not thibking about the people who dont have homes. it doesnt matter about feeling safe or not. what abor the people on the streets dont you think they wanna feel safe too?? no lets just tkae awya their homes and make it even worse for them. oh oh how about the fact that we also STILL have a serial killer on the lose who actually takes the lives of the homelessness. salt lake actually the whole state of utah is an actual f***ing joke. remember that we are all human we breathe the same we bleed the same. f**k utah and all the mormons. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/27/2023 16:38 Conor Buckley Petition PLNPCM2023-00106 - Larsen Sequist Hi Diana, I am writing to oppose the zoning proposal around 1720 & 1734 S West Temple. As the proposal notes, years ago, Salt Lake City wanted to keep 155 lots as "low density residential." Why change that now? There are plenty of other zones that are left unprotected to be turned into multi-family housing. When referencing the City's plan to increase housing and affordable housing, this current rezoning proposal actually misses the mark. This will not be more affordable housing but it will be more luxury townhomes that will raise taxes for our local community and continue to gentrify the neighborhood. This is a proud, blue-collar, working neighborhood that prides itself on affordability while being in a central location. Projects like this proposal will hurt residents in the area and make the area increasingly less affordable. We are feeling ourselves being crowded out. This will also not address the homeless problem, petty crime, property crime, and overcrowding of the S West Temple corridor. There have already been medium-density housing added on the corners of S West Temple and 1700 and there is simply no more space. When the City laid out its plan for the future, it was clear that it wanted West Temple to be the backbone of the single family housing residential row. This was done masterfully. There is no other community in the City where you can walk a quiet, shaded, peaceful neighborhood and then be at a ballpark, or take a right turn and be on Main St or have State St, with its bars and restaurants, another block away. It's quiet. It's nice. It's tucked away from the mayhem and lawlessness of Main St and 1700. It is lined with beautiful trees. Such a development project would destroy this corridor. It's what makes this community so special. This proposed project threatens that integrity of the City, its plan, and the Ballpark Community. Parking and traffic on the residential road is already crowded, the thought of an additional 8-12 housing units being placed there, and the construction that goes with it is unimaginable and untenable. So, as a member of the Ballpark Community, I ask that you do not approve this re-zoning request of the 1720 and 1734 S West Temple. Thanks, Conor Buckley Resident of Ballpark, Salt Lake City, UT 10/29/2023 20:44 Anonymous Constituent Housing Crisis I am so sad and terrified for the future of our city. I'm a 3rd generation Utahn, and I can't believe we are where we are in cost of living/housing prices. Our city has always had multiplexes (Harvard/Yale, Sugarhouse, Liberty Park, Avenues, University, among others), and they have been a part of our community giving those who can't afford larger places a way to be in a community that is not an apartment highrise in a food desert or industrial area. We need more of these in our communities. They are a responsible way to add density. Also, why are we allowing existing units to be rented as short term rentals at all? I don't care what the legislature says, there are so many homes/duplexes/apartments/basement apartments people could be renting long term being used as cash cows. Property owners have to abide by zoning laws, why are we not enforcing this?! They cause contention and safety issues for all of us. We have to stop those as part of this plan. Those are much more of a threat in my mind than a 4 plex as a neighbor. There are background checks, credit checks, leases, etc for long term renters. Anyone with a credit card can rent an Airbnb or VRBO and no one ever knows if that is the real person staying there. We have them across the street from our elementary school. I have one next door in upper sugarhouse. Do what you can to nip this in the bud. We have plenty of hotels. 10/30/2023 12:05 Andrea Bailey Council Comment- Pro- Douglas Ward rezone request Andrea Bailey called to express that she is in favor of the Douglas Ward request to rezone the area from R2 to Industrial, so they can build a school. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/31/2023 10:57 Jesse Glines Vagrant issues on 1700 s 1100 w Alejandro, I have done everything I can think of to help do my part about this issue. The crackhead issue at the old water park, whether it be, RV's or just the shantytown's, It's not only disgusting but is also affecting our neighborhood. They drive by incredibly slowly through our neighborhood and case our houses. Or they ride their bikes with baby carriages filled with junk instead of babies casing our neighborhoods. I am tired of my car being gone through, missing packages, which sometimes they were found in a neighbor's yard discarded, a general unsafe feeling, not being able to let my kids use the parks and feeling like I'm in a ghetto. My neighbors and community feel the same. They are incredibly kind hard-working people as well as I am and we will not deal with this any longer. We are so tired of promises that never seem to be followed through. The police give 0 s**** when I call them and tell them about the issues. They tell me to call you and when I do you are incredibly kind and I do believe in you but things do not change. Do you have any guidance for us? And please do not say patience. We have been trying that a long time. Something needs to happen now. I will do everything I can within the law To help. If I need to take turns with people in my house to sit outside, armed, around the clock I will. I am not looking to open a whole other can of worms I just want to inform you, We have no sympathy for drug addicts and the vagrants. You can be homeless and a good person. This does not include leaving drug paraphernalia and stealing/destroying our things. Jesse Glines 10/31/2023 11:55 Anonymous Constituent Regarding leading information Att: Olivia Erickson Slcgov.com: I encountered a news statement from some subject, location 100 South 300 East Salt Lake City Utah USA. In this area I'm being told the (FBI) has set up an APT. in one of the location APT's in this area they seem too believe my spouse is going too be targeted for the buying of Drugs the street drug clear, while they send subject to salt the the drug too White color subjects, then make some type of arrest . and the salers of the drug only has too give the truth of their daily involvement. While some subject beleive they can cause problems. The only reason my spouse has went too that location is because at 400 Soth 300 East 7-11 accused my spouse of having exchanged a Queer $100.00 bill and was ask by Police not too return , I took a 100.00 from my SSI account and wanted too see the differents but they clerk had no clue of what I was saying. I asked some Security Officers to intuduce me to this agent in this location but no contact . I then registered ( Gaptasses- Crime Stoppers) on line. 11/1/2023 9:47 Chaise Warr Guadalupe connectivity Hello, Just a brief response to the “positives” you mentioned about connectivity in the area. I lived in Milwaukee and Chicago. You are correct. There is a lot of space that has been used and developed under the highways. I think restaurants and recreation areas are wonderful. But there is also a lot of space that is not used in those ways. It becomes areas for dumping and camping. SLC already has areas under the freeway that can be developed, areas that are blank and ready for development. We would like to see areas like Folsom be restored and made better first. And we want to see the success there first. If UDOT is able to build these areas, they are able to get more funding. This excess funding will not be to connect the community. The neighbors on both sides of the freeway don’t want this, in any shape or form. It’s like a bullseye. Of course you will find more positive comments in favor of a connective space the farther from the center of location. But it should be those opinions in the center that matter most. We want connectivity. Just not this. The City is going to and already has invested in 300 N. Please push for that before any type of connection on 400 N. I don’t want to move out of my area. But I’m afraid something like this would probably add to the list of reasons to do so. Thanks! Chaise Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/1/2023 10:18 Greg Kelly Council Comment Ana, Thanks for your thoughtful email. I appreciate you taking this shopping cart ban idea up with your colleagues and for your prior advocacy for Pioneer Park. As you consider funding various addiction initiatives in the future, I want to highlight what seems to me to be a shortcoming in the overall effort. In working with a couple of the homeless with whom I have developed a relationship, it has become clear to me that there is not one number for someone to call who is ready for rehab or detox. They have to call around to various facilities looking for a bed. For some of these people who are / have become mentally impaired, that is a huge hurdle. And before they’ve found the right numbers to call let alone a facility with a bed, they’re high again. It seems to me we should reduce the barriers to treatment as much as possible for when an individual is ready to get clean and one way we could do that would be to have one phone number for them to call that would act as a clearinghouse for all of the disparate providers that are already funded. I also appreciate the additional funding for the police. It’s vital we reduce the availability of the hard drugs in order to support the recovery of our addicts. We are asking too much of addicts to get clean when this kind of intense chemical temptation is on offer in plain sight all the time. It’s like holding weight loss meetings in an In an Out Burger and wondering why everyone is still fat. One final thought. As much as I would love to see Pioneer Park upgraded, I beg you consider holding off on spending the money until a homeless camp is created. It seems to me that if the public facilities open at Pioneer Park before a camp for the homeless, this park will cease to be a park entirely and will become the de facto homeless camp. Please let me know how the shopping cart ban idea goes. If I can ever be helpful, please dont hesitate to let me know. Best Greg 11/1/2023 15:10 Aline Devaud We need more affordable homes for sale in Salt Lake City Hello Dan, One of my big concerns regarding affordable housing in Utah is the lack of affordable homes for purchase. At a recent Salt Lake City council meeting, I learned that 34,000 rental units had been built in the recent past. My concern is that developers and rental property owners are gaining more financially to the detriment of the average individual, couple or family that wants to own a home and build some financial security. Renters are at the disadvantage to property owners in acquiring wealth and it seems that in Utah, there are new apartments going up everywhere but very few small homes or town homes for sale. Frankly, I was upset to read in the Monday, October 30th Salt Lake Tribune that the “townhomes” being built in the Utah State Fairpark area are being built as rentals. Where are the homes for sale being built for the average income family? I work as a mental health therapist and I hear the frustrations of my clients in their late 20s and early 30s who tell me that they have done the “right thing” by going to college and getting a good job and they can not afford to buy a home. And on the other end of spectrum, older people like me who would like to move some day into a smaller home, find that there are no small homes or condominiums available that would provide an even exchange of equity. I know that the legislature has more power and resources to do more to support the average person who wants to purchase a home and pass legislation that limits the further income inequality between real estate investors and regular people. I have contacted my representatives on this important issue. Please do all you can to support the average family trying to buy a home and build up some wealth and security for themselves. Respectfully, Aline Devaud 11/2/2023 14:22 Julia McGonigle (EXTERNAL) Ranked Choice Voting on Ballot Hello, I am a constituent of Salt Lake County, District 5, and I just got my ballot today. I wanted to say the best part of this ballot was the ranked choice voting for SLC Mayor election. This is the second ballot from the county I have seen with ranked choice and I could not be happier. Thank you very much for implementing the change! I eagerly await the day I see ranked choice for our federal representatives as well. I want this change to be permanent past the end date of the pilot period in 2026. Make it happen representatives. Thank you, Julia McGonigle Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/2/2023 16:23 Amanda Longwell Please support and approve the Disability Law Center's Grant request via your ARPA Community Grants Program!! Council Members, Please support the DLC receiving their GRANT request from the SLC "ARPA Community Grants Program" From my understanding, it is on the agenda for your upcoming meeting on this coming Tuesday November 7th. As I'm sure you all are aware of the multiple years of superintendent turnover and interim superintendents who in that position can't do substantive work. So, we have COVID, a good superintendent manipulated out of her position (of which las I heard she is now over the entire state's Superintendent organization., but she wasn't good enough to be our superintendent?...) We then have an interim, a replacement superintendent riddled with controversy, an interim and now a superintendent who has no superintendent experience AND admittedly knows nothing about special education. Through all of the above, we use to have a special education director who truly cared about every child and really worked hard to create inclusive schools, structures and environments and HEAR the needs of the family and the child with a disability to try and do right for the whole child. Several years later, we now have a relatively new special education director whose presentation on how she is progressing in meeting the goals and objectives of the (Special Education) Inclusive Schools resolution, was mostly just pictures of kids with disabilities smiling and minimal to no data to show anything of profound substance towards the intent of this resolution. Special Education is one of the most data tracked student bodies yet, teh Special Education Director's presentation was mostly pictures of the kids.... Here is the link for your convienence. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1643998573/slcschoolsorg/iuppagjlghreb7vmmifk/0770_001.pdf Amidst all that we families have been told certain settings do not take/teach kids with "syndromes", we have had individuals in SLCSD authority positions falsify documents to fit their narrative, principals who don't know special education making placement decisions against our students with disabilities that inhibit access to educational opportunities therefore prevent their academic growth and therefore contribute to school teams denying certain students with disabilities more inclusive placements. Then we parents are left to filter through mounds of regulation and court precedence and studies, etc.. to try and show WHY our kiddo deserves a better opportunity then what is given. But we are one and the district is many, so we need the Disability Law Center to help us help our kids. The better educated students with disabilities are the better their outcomes and a higher likelihood of not ending up on the streets or relying heavily on city, state, federal resources. Please help us help our kids, vote yes to the DLC's Grant request to advocate for our students with disabilities in the Salt Lake City School District! See below for my beautiful daughter, Tori, who is being denied a more academically focused setting essentially because she was born with "a Syndrome" (Down Syndrome). Please vote yes to the DLC's Grant request! Best, Amanda 11/2/2023 16:26 Craig Buschmann Please support the Bloq 11 Barcade conditional use permit Dear Mayor Mendenhall, Councilman Mano, SLC Council members, and ELPCO council members, I urge you to support the Bloq 11 Barcade conditional use permit on 11th E & Kensington. I live in this area and welcome a neighborhood bar that acts as a third place for the community to gather. (Third places are those areas besides work and church/school where a community can interact with each other.) These are the types of places that give a community a sense of identity. I recently visited Helper, UT, and had the pleasure of meeting and sharing a beverage with locals at the Clampers 1900 chapter/club and the neighboring Regis Bar. We met a software developer that moved to Helper from Golden, CO during the pandemic because of the high-speed internet and low cost of housing. We met with former coal miners. It was a wonderful experience. These are the types of interactions that neighborhood bars and similar third places provide. Please support Bloq 11 and the neighborhood become a more welcoming, walkable, and livable place. Thank you, Craig Craig Buschmann Salt Lake City, UT Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/3/2023 13:20 Margaret Holloway Housing Affordability Incentives As a resident of the west side. The new ADU requirements were seen as a way for some people to add onto or adjust their homes. They should be allowed city wide The incentives to add smaller complexes ALL OVER the city and not just in certain areas. I understand the people with the historical and expensive houses are afraid their neighbors are going to sell out or tear down their homes to put multi unit housing. Or an invester doing this since that is what they did around Liberty Park with the older homes. We have seen it ... But the houses they did that too where not in exclusive neighborhoods. And even if they were small 4 unit nice designed is a good thing. To watch the fight over the more dense housing but still NOT APARTMENTS that was going on in the avenues was a joke....It seems the more affluent want a say as to who is allowed. That is the problem in this city....East versus West. That they deserve to keep what they have. But you can alter a large house with an ADU or already have it built like that and your neighborhood does not know. They fit in. So I am not understanding why they think they are special? It is not like houses are coming done and apartments with 8 stories are going up. NO That is what is happening on our side of the interstate. But money talks. But this proposal needs to be city wide. Not for just the have nots. By the way how many bought a cheaper west side house and turned it into a rental? AirBNB hmmm But will not allow them next to their house. The city needs to enforce the codes of maintaining property working cars on property or street, Because when it is only enforced on the east and the hill and not on the west it hurts everyone... But it gives you an excuse not to invest or really care what goes on over here. Since that is where the others live... 11/3/2023 14:39 Beth Blattenberger Affordable Housing Initiative I am dismayed by the Affordable Housing Initiative, because it lacks transparency and fails to appreciate the value of community and of neighborhood character. Lack of transparency: Under current zoning, if a noncomforming structure is proposed, all neighbors get a notice saying the locations and when and where to comment. Under the proposed rezoning, there should be notices sent out to everyone in an affected zone saying what changes are proposed in their zone. Otherwise a homeowner could wake up one day and discover that a 4-plex was being built next door, and there would be no recourse because it was now automatically okay under the new zoning. Many of my neighbors seem unaware that this is what could happen. For transparency, everyone should be notified. Community: I live in a primarily single-family community in which many neighbors have known each other for years and support each other in a multitude of ways. 4-plexesd are occupied by renters. There are already a few 4-plexes in my neighborhood, but the residents are not truly part of the community. Renters come and go and do not put down roots. Visual blight and property values: 4-plexes are rectangular boxes with entrances facing the sides. I understand there would be a minimal requirement for glass on the street side, but they would still be ugly boxes with entrances potentially facing single-family side yards, and alleys turned into parking lots, with more cars parked on streets because there would not be enough room in the alleys. Landlords are not motivated to do attractive landscaping. Adjacent property values would go down, and there is no compensation for this. While neighborhoods that are designated as historic would be protected, there are manolder neighborhoods that have historic character but lack this protection. The value of these neighborhoods to community and quality of life is being overlooked. My house is not just a place where I live and sleep. It is part of a community. Salt Lake City should strive to keep the remaining neighborhoods where people are able to have personal ties. There should be certain allowed multifamily locations, such as important business centers, the university area and major arterials, but allowing 4-plexes throughout single-family neighborshoods is destructive of community and quality of life. 11/6/2023 16:40 Colleen Santelli The Disability Law Center Grant application Please support the DLC receiving their Grant request from the SLC "ARPA Community Grants Program". This is so vital to families who have students with disabilities. Many issues need to be addressed and the DLC is one of only a few resources. Regards, Colleen Santelli Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/6/2023 16:41 David LINDA FAWSON Zoning Please do not change the zoning to allow higher density in our city. This includes duplexes to large multi-family. I live here pay taxes here and like the zoning just as it is!! Dave 11/6/2023 16:42 Margaret Miller Proposed changes in zoning to add more housing After reading several of your documents, I feel that the City is rushing into this process without sufficient review. Many of the properties where you could add an ADU would be a detriment to the rest of the neighborhood in terms of traffic and more people in the neighborhood. I think you should table this discussion and take it up again next year. Thank you. Margaret Miller 11/7/2023 9:14 Kimball Young AHI How does the City retain and gain owner occupancy dwellings? The City should require owner occupancy of all new housing replacing single-family homes. Kimball Young Chairman, Foothill Sunnyside Community Council 11/7/2023 9:20 Lee Anderson TAG SLC petitions for 135, 159, 163 W Goltz Ave and 1036 S Jefferson St My name is Lee Anderson and I am a homeowner on Goltz Ave. I will be attending the hearing November 7th at 7pm to voice my comments against these petitions and if possible would like to use the attached as a visual aid. . Thank you for your time and look forward to speaking with the Council tomorrow. -Lee 11/7/2023 10:10 Jill Stephenson ensure units are used and define affordable I applaud the Council's proposal for Affordable Housing Incentives but we need to ensure (like lets get a policy analysts and legal involved) to make sure this proposal benefits Salt Lake citizens more than the developers. Define 'affordable' - poverty rate percentrage, % of income, etc. Maybe a sliding scale for rent? And units need to maintain a percentage of occupancy in these units. Rent may have to decrease to fill units. The new algorithums developers are using to keep rental rates high and occupancy low are unacceptable. 11/7/2023 11:29 Nigel Swaby FW: (EXTERNAL) Affordable Housing Overlay Councilmembers, I've had the opportunity to scan the affordable housing overlay proposal. I haven't read all the details, but find it a significant improvement to the original draft. It appears to allow greater density in residential zones and adds housing to certain commercial zones. Adding housing in commercial zones seems to fit broader trends of less office space and more multi-family and urban warehouses. The affordability requirements are more reasonable which should allow development to take place in all parts of the city. That equity concern was one of the biggest issues I had with the previous version. Overall, this seems like something good for the city! Nigel11/7/2023 14:14 Alicia Cunningham-Bryant Affordable Housing Initiative Proposal - East Liberty Park Community Organization Response Dear City Council Members and Mr. Fullmer, Attached please find the formal comments by the East Liberty Park Community Organization on the Affordable Housing Initiative proposal. If you have an additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best Alicia Cunningham-Bryant ELPCO Board Member ** Attachment 5 11/7/2023 14:15 Dominique Roberson Comment Re: ARPA Community Recovery Assistance Grant Good afternoon, Volunteers of America, Utah would like to submit the comment below regarding the ARPA Community Recovery Assistance Grants (CRAG) application: We encourage the City Council to follow the Committee and Mayor’s recommendations of full funding for this critically important program to help youth experiencing homelessness. The full-time on-site clinician would provide counseling, crisis intervention, therapeutic groups, and connections to long-term mental health supports. Engaging youth with clinical services improves behavioral health outcomes, which assists youth with achieving self-sufficiency and moving out of homelessness. Thank you, Dominique 11/7/2023 14:16 Carol Wicks affordable housing plan these comments refer to the original plan excluding any revisions i have committed before that i dont think this will really due the trick im a licensed broker ith rental units and the problem we face immediately high cost of both labor and materials combined with interest costs i am also an investor in real estate and not convinced to develop a lot or build adu even with market rate rents why do the powers that be not accept that people who work in salt lake city have to live in salt lake city another 60 unit investor told me affordable housing can be found in west valley magna i agree we need to make our city, our county our country so that working people need to have affordable housing i look forward to the statistics to prove this plan motivates developers and small time investors that there providing it is in their best interest due to the above high costs of construction will city planning put these statistics in their monthly reports carol wicks Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/7/2023 14:17 Amanda Longwell Please support and approve the Disability Law Center's Grant request via your ARPA Community Grants Program!! Good Afternoon Council Members, Just a friendly reminder. Please vote yes yes yes to the DLC's education grant request. We parents of student's with disabilities need the DLC's help so desperately.. Best, Amanda Longwell 11/7/2023 14:18 Beth Blattenberger Affordable Housing Incentives inquiry If a "nonconforming" project is proposed in a neighborhood, all the neighbors get notices giving an address and when and where to comment. For the current affordable housing initiative to be transparent, everyone who lives in an affected zone should get a notice saying what changes are proposed for the zone in which they live, how the can comment, and by when. Otherwise, people could wake up one day to a single-family home being torn down next door and a 4-plex built, with no recourse, because without their paying enough attention, it had just become allowable construction. Otherwise the plan is anything but transparent. You just advertise the noble objectives, like affordability, without the reality of how it is to be accomplished. 11/7/2023 14:20 Nancy Olsen Housing incentives AND Drive-ability in SLC/Sugarhouse Dear Council Members, Thank you for your service. There is a BOOM in housing developments in SLC. As a long time resident (50 years), I have seen these changes and some are hard to embrace. As a resident I really don’t feel like I can influence whether these developments continue or not. It seems like entirely too much building. Since the city is allowing all this development, why is the city at the same time reducing the lanes of traffic in the city? Lanes have been removed from 900 East, 900 South, Highland Drive and plan to be removed on 2100 South. This is completely baffling. Why do we want to bring more people in but not give them an efficient way to get from place to place? Do we want cars idling creating more exhaust and emissions waiting to get in and out of certain congested areas? How do the businesses stay afloat when customers like myself don’t want to battle the backup of traffic in order to get to their respective stores? One of the reasons I live in the sugarhouse area is the close proximity to so many businesses. These street restrictions make me consider driving away from this area for restaurants, movies, shopping, professional visits, etc. I would rather drive 15 minutes continuously moving then sit in traffic for the same amount of time to go 1/4 of the distance. I understand growth will happen but can’t we also maintain some of the norms that have made this city a great place to live? Please don’t drive out the people who are already here in order to make way for new development. We CAN have both. Keep the streets open and moving. Please don’t close more lanes. Thank You, Nancy Olsen 11/7/2023 14:34 Jordan Atkin Public Statement for Withdrawn Petitions at Goltz/Jefferson While we believe that creating more density on Goltz and Jefferson would benefit the community, we understand and respect that the City Council has indicated that this is not the right time to consider RMU zoning for the interior blocks. We appreciate the effort that went into developing the Ballpark Master Plan and want to allow some time for it to become integrated into the neighborhood. Though we may not always agree, we value the perspectives of our Council members and believe that through open communication and mutual understanding, we can find solutions that are good for the city as a whole. We look forward to continuing to work together to shape the future of our growing city. Jordan Atkin 11/7/2023 18:59 Anonymous Constituent No to subsidized housing I am extremely opposed to your efforts to subsidize some people's housing on the backs if other's wallets. Your misguided efforts only make the problem WORSE with ugly, shoddy housing destroying our beautiful neighborhoods!!! HOUSING IS NOT A RIGHT! Not everyone can live where they want to! This is a nasty race to the bottom and your ruining our once fair city!!!!!!! 11/7/2023 19:05 Anonymous Constituent No to crime filled bagtant camps Its time to stop coddling the homeless vagrants in our city. they bring nothing but crime ands disease and filth to our city. It's time to bring down the hammer and either get them into drug rehab, a mental institution or prison!!! We are sick of living with the filth and crime in this city!!!!! 11/7/2023 20:10 Joan Demke Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Approximately 1720 South and 1734 South West Temple Please do not rezone keep as a single family. Parking is horrible we need no more multi family especially when no parking spaces are made west temple has no more street parking available as mentioned before we can't even put our garbage cans out for pickup because there is no room. It is also extremely hard to see traffic when trying to pull out of our driveways because of so many cars parked on the street it's ridiculous. SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND SLC AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES Council Districts 1, 2, 6, and 7, representing the west and east sides of the City, each have more than 50 percent of housing in owner-occupied dwellings. The middle of the City, Districts 3, 4, and 5, average 34 percent owner-occupied. The proposed AHI allows all our single family homes to be replaced, each with other housing as large as a four-plex. How important are owner occupied single family homes? •Single family homes are where families with kids live. WhileCity population is up, our school district is faced with closingschools because of the drop in number of school-aged children.•Home owners directly pay property taxes.•Home owners are more involved and vote.•Owner-occupied housing is generally better maintained.•Owner occupied neighborhoods have lower crime and saferstreets.How does the City retain and gain owner occupancy dwellings? The City should require owner occupancy of all new housing replacing single family homes. How can the City facilitate more affordable for sale housing? Tax credits and other state subsidies can help. But the City has capability in its Redevelopment Agency. It can allocate its tax increment funds for individual homes for sale and large scale for sale home projects. The key is reducing the cost of land. Attachment 1 To: Salt Lake City Planning Staff and Commission Re: Petition Numbers: PLNPCM2023-00223 – Hardage Hospitality Zoning Amendment & PLNPCM2023-00401 – Hardage Hospitality General Plan Amendment (GPA) Date: October 20, 2023 Dear Planning Staff and Commissioners, I am opposed to the proposed zoning amendment from TSA-Transition to TSA-Core of the former Pizza Hut lot at the corner of 400 South and 800 East, the adjacent vacant lot to the north, and the sliver of the RMF-35 lot on which a cute, though neglected, duplex exists. These are my personal comments. I do support redevelopment of the two primary lots in question within TSA-T (Transition) zoning standards. This is already high-density with various bonuses and breaks thanks to being a TSA zone in the first place. The owners should develop a project on these two lots within current zoning. The developers have owned these properties for many years. They already got one significant up-zone from CC to TSA-T when the Transit Station Area zones were designed and implemented about a decade ago. I note that the proposed building has an excess of parking beyond minimum requirements as well as amenity spaces that could be re-designed for apartments in order to increase units if that is their goal. This is far preferable to a rezone that would allow yet another and even larger “Luxury Class A” (an arbitrary real estate term) podium building that is completely out of scale to the adjacent property to the west—the large, low rise 765 Lofts complex that this development group once owned but sold off—and the other structures at this intersection: a fast food restaurant, an oil change business, the historic 10th Ward church. All of these buildings are low-rise and will remain so for the foreseeable future. This building would stick out like a sore thumb. The entire north side block faces from 700 to 900 East of 400 South are zoned TSA-Transition. This zoning was carefully considered and specifically implemented in consultation with the community council at that time to buffer the mixed use, mixed density historic neighborhoods to the north. As the zone itself says, this zoning is a transition from higher density Core along the transit corridor. It relates to the surrounding neighborhood rather than being independent from it. There is no justification to spot rezone these parcels, apparently requested to accommodate these developers’ current financial targets. They have 2 decades of equity and should be able to make a project pencil within TSA-T. It is not the Commission’s authority or responsibility to pad the profits of developers. Rather, it is important planning and policy to keep this 2-block stretch consistent zoning. Excess parking also encourages and subsidizes car ownership, drives up rents. and undermines transit use, the main point of the TSA zones. The map and plan amendments are also inconsistent in both specifics and in the big picture with existing master plan and citywide plans, goals, and strategies. Specifically, this project directly undermines the Guiding Principles of the Thriving in Place plan that was just adopted. These include protecting existing tenants from displacement, preserving existing affordable housing, and producing truly affordable housing, especially deeply affordable. Case studies and experience from around the globe demonstrates that non-market housing investments, strong tenant protection laws, creative reuse, and affordable unit requirements in market-rate housing all are effective solutions. Trickle-down housing (‘Filtering’) like trickle-down economics, is largely illusory and cannot work at any meaningful timescale to address the housing affordability crisis locally or nationally. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61b3b19cf10da76e758406e3/t/6455729f4ff7f50f934f50e4/168332 1505305/TIP+At-a-Glance+Placemat+-+May+3+2023+-+for+public+review.pdf Attachment 2 The biggest need right now in Salt Lake City and D4 is deeply affordable housing and also larger rental or owned housing for families. These amendments would lead to the demolition of existing naturally affordable housing—the duplex and single-family detached houses that also add character to the neighborhood. The proposed building would be yet another studio, 1-and 2-bedroom market rate generic podium that is already overbuilt in Salt Lake City and this corridor according to the city’s data. As I understand, the single-family home at 350 S 800 E is the long-time residence of a family whose children attend Bennion Elementary. The current threats of closure of neighborhood schools are a direct consequence of the Planning Commission, Administration, and City Council zoning decisions and the continual erosion of housing that accommodates families, not just young professionals, active retirees, and college students. Granted, the Commission and Council cannot guarantee the preservation of the houses and 5-plex apartment building on 800 E that are part of the current redevelopment schematic. However, you will assure the demolition of the houses with a rezone. In several recent cases, when rezoning proposals such as this were rejected by the Commission and Council, developers did not follow through with their threats of demolition of existing housing but instead either designed projects within appropriate zoning (Haxton on 900 E) or invested in maintenance and upkeep (200 South/Lincoln St houses). Good things can come from saying no to inappropriate zoning and development. Once again, I support a smaller project within the existing TSA-T zone on the former Pizza Hut and adjacent vacant lots. I also urge the developers to keep the existing housing and invest in long-deferred maintenance, or simply sell the properties to others who will do so. If the developers wish to build this particular project, they can simply purchase property that is already zoned appropriately for it rather than rezone their long-time land banked TSA-T and RMF35 properties. Real estate if fungible. It is an active market. Spot re-zoning only encourages more investors to buy up lower-zoned properties, many of which are currently the exact kind of missing middle housing city officials want to promote: duplexes, small cottages, unit-legalized detached houses with several apartments in historic structures that contribute to the neighborhood character as well as National Historic District designation. Linden Avenue just to the north is a classic example. Regarding NHDs, the tax credits due to NHDs allow many of us to invest in renovating our buildings. Investors with cash offers hoping to eventually get upzones regularly out- compete individuals and families who are looking to buy into our neighborhoods. At ~26% ownership rates in District Four, this is also a crisis. These trends are accelerating and undermining our residents’ ability to Thrive in Place. Simplistic “more units at any cost” is leading to displacement and poor urban design. The beauty of this area is the 100+ year old mixed use, mixed density, walkable design. Projects like this continue to erode the character and diversity of building types and households alike. Please reject these proposed amendments and send a negative recommendation to the City Council. Sincerely, Jen Colby, MPA (personal comments) District 4/East Central Community resident Th r i v i n g i n P l a c e at -a-gl a n c e a on e -pa g e o v e r v i e w o f S a l t L a k e C i t y ’ s A n t i -Di s p l a c e m e n t S t r a t e g y Fr o m t h e Ph a s e 1 Re p o r t : Di s p l a c e m e n t i n S a l t L a k e C i t y i s si g n i f i c a n t a n d ge t t i n g w o r s e . Th e r e a r e no “ m o r e a f f o r d a b l e ” ne i g h b o r h o o d s i n S a l t L a k e C i t y wh e r e f a m i l i e s c a n m o v e o n c e di s p l a c e d . Sa l t L a k e C i t y i s g r o w i n g a n d th e r e a r e n ’ t e n o u g h a ff o r d a b l e un i t s f o r l o w -in c o m e f a m i l i e s . Pl u s a s h o r t a g e o f u n i t s o v e r a l l i s cr e a t i n g m o r e c o m p e t i t i o n f o r lo w e r c o s t u n i t s Al m o s t ha l f o f S a l t L a k e C i t y ho u s e h o l d s a r e r e n t b u r d e n e d . Mo r e t h a n h a l f o f a l l f a m i l i e s wi t h c h i l d r e n l i v e i n di s p l a c e m e n t r i s k nei g h b o r h o o d s . La t i n x a n d B l a c k h o u s e h o l d s ha v e m e d i a n i n c o m e s t h a t a r e lo w e r t h a n w h a t i s r e q u i r e d t o af f o r d r e n t i n t h e c i t y . Di s p l a c e m e n t a f f e c t s mo r e t h a n ha l f o f W h i t e h o u s e h o l d s i n S a l t La k e C i t y a n d d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y af f e c t s h o u s e h o l d s o f c o l o r . Ma n y a r e a s e x p e r i e n c i n g h i g h di s p l a c e m e n t r i s k we r e r e d l i n e d in t h e p a s t a n d a r e s t i l l h i g h l y se g r e g a t e d t o d a y . Co m m u n i t y m e m b e r s a r e v e r y co n c e r n e d a b o u t d i s p l a c e m e n t an d i t s i m p a c t s . Th e y w a n t m o r e af f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g an d s u p p o r t fo r t h o s e b e i n g i m p a c t e d . GU I D I N G P R I N C I P L E S : pr i o r i t i z e t e n a n t p r o t e c t i o n s / pa r t n e r w i t h t h o s e mo s t im p a c t e d / in c r e a s e ho u s i n g ev e r y w h e r e / fo c u s o n a f f o r d a b i l i t y / b u i l d a n e c o -sy s t e m f o r a c t i o n Ca v e a t s : th e r e a r e n o m a g i c f i x e s (i t w i l l b e h a r d w o r k ) / w e wi l l b u i l d o n w h a t w e a r e a l r e a d y d o i n g / st a t e p r e -em p t i o n l i m i t s w h a t w e c a n d o / w e h a v e f i n i t e r e s o u r c e s + th i n g s w e do n ’ t co n t r o l / th e h o u s i n g c r i s i s i s r e g i o n a l / we m u s t w o r k t o g e t h e r 2 PR E S E R V E th e a f f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g w e h a v e 2A De v e l o p a n d A d o p t a Co m m u n i t y B e n e f i t P o l i c y 2B Ac q u i r e a n d R e h a b i l i t a t e Un s u b s i d i z e d Hou s i n g 2C In v e s t i n C o m m u n i t y L a n d T r u s t Mo d e l s 2D Ad d r e s s Sho r t -Ter m Ren t a l s’ Imp a c t s o n Hou s i n g 6 AD V O C A T E fo r t e n a n t s at t h e s t a t e l e v e l 6A Wo r k t o Ad v a n c e Ten a n t Rig h t s an d Af f o r d a b l e Ho u s i n g at t h e Sta t e Lev e l 6 In t e r r e l a t e d G o a l s / 2 2 St r a t e g i c P r i o r i t i e s 3 O U T C O M E G O A L S : Pr o t e c t – Pr e s e r v e – Pr o d u c e 3 SU P P O R T I N G GO A L S : Ex p a n d Ca p a c i t y – Pa r t n e r + C o l l a b o r a t e – Ad v o c a t e 3 PR O D U C E mo r e h o u s i n g , es p e c i a l l y a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g 3A Ad o p t t h e A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g In c e n t i v e s P o l i c y 3B Ma k e AD U s Eas i e r a n d Les s Exp e n s i v e t o B u i l d 3C Cr e a t e Mor e Div e r s e Hou s i n g Cho i c e s in A l l A r e a s 3D Ut i l i z e Pu b l i c l y Ow n e d Pr o p e r t y 3E Pr i o r i t i z e Lon g -Ter m Aff o r d a b i l i t y , Sup p o r t Ser v i c e s , an d Tr a n s i t Ac c e s s 5 PA R T N E R + C O L L A B O R A T E to m a x i m i z e i m p a c t 5A Fo r m a Ci t y Im p l e m e n t a t i o n T e a m 5B Wo r k w i t h Pa r t n e r s t o C o n v e n e a Re g i o n a l An t i -Di s p l a c e m e n t Co a l i t i o n 5C La u n c h a n O n g o i n g C o m m u n i t y Pa r t n e r s h i p t o C o o r d i n a t e Ac t i o n + Inv e s t m e n t in t h e H i g h e s t R i s k A r e a s 4 EX P A N D CA P A C I T Y fo r t e n a n t su p p o r t + a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g 4A De v e l o p New Fu n d i n g S o u r c e s an d Le v e r a g e E x i s t i n g R e s o u r c e s 4B De f i n e In d i c a t o r s t o T r a c k Di s p l a c e m e n t a n d D e v e l o p Da t a Sy s t e m s t o T r a c k P r o g r e s s 4C St r e n g t h e n t h e C i t y ’ s C ap a c i t y to En f o r c e De e d -Re s t r i c t e d Ho u s i n g Co m m i t m e n t s 1 PR O T E C T the m o s t vu l n e r a b l e fr o m d i s p l a c e m e n t 1A De v e l o p a Te n a n t Rel o c a t i o n Ass i s t a n c e Pr o g r a m 1B Ad o p t a D i s p l a c e d T e n a n t s Pr e f e r e n c e P o l i c y 1C Im p r o v e a n d Exp a n d Ten a n t Res o u r c e s an d S e r v i c e s 1D Cr e a t e a Te n a n t R e s o u r c e C e n t e r an d N a v i g a t i o n S e r v i c e 1E He l p Ten a n t s Bec o m e Own e r s 1F Pro mo t e A f f o r d a b l e L i v i n g a n d Be t t e r J o b s Ne a r -Te r m A c t i o n P r i o r i t i e s Su p p o r t Te n a n t s 1A De v e l o p a T e n a n t R e l o c a t i o n As s i s t a n c e P r o g r a m Pr o v i d e s u p p o r t t o t e n a n t s d i r e c t l y im p a c t e d b y r e d e v e l o p m e n t . 1B Ad o p t a D i s p l a c e d T e n a n t s Pr e f e r e n c e P o l i c y De s i g n a n d p u t i n p l a c e a p o l i c y fo r e l i g i b l e d e e d -re s t r i c t e d u n i t s s o th a t d i s p l a c e d t e n a n t s a r e g i v e n a pr e f e r e n c e w h e n t h o s e u n i t s be c o m e a v a i l a b l e . 1C Im p r o v e a n d E x p a n d T e n a n t Re s o u r c e s a n d S e r v i c e s In c r e a s e a w a r e n e s s o f t e n a n t re s o u r c e s ; i n n o v a t e o n s e r v i c e de l i v e r y ; m a k e ch a n g e s t o t h e La n d l o r d T e n a n t I n i t i a t i v e . 1D Cr e a t e a T e n a n t R e s o u r c e C e n t e r an d N a v i g a t i o n S e r v i c e Pa r t n e r t o c r e a t e a Te n a n t Re s o u r c e C e n t e r w e b s i t e ; d e v e l o p an d l a u n c h a n a v i g a t i o n s e r v i c e t o co n n e c t t e n a n t s w i t h t h e re s o u r c e s a n d s u p p o r t t h e y ne e d . Pr e s e r v e + C r e a t e A f f o r d a b i l i t y 2A Ad o p t a C o m m u n i t y B e n e f i t P o l i c y Mi t i g a t e t h e l o s s o f e x i s t i n g a f f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g o n r e d e v e l o p m e n t s i t e s th r o u g h a n i n c e n t i v e s a p p r o a c h . 3A Ad o p t t h e A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g In c e n t i v e s P o l i c y In c e n t i v i z e t h e c r e a t i o n o f a f f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g i n n e w d e v e l o p m e n t . 2B Ac q u i r e /Re h a b Un s u b s i d i z e d H o u s i n g Pa r t n e r t o a c q u i r e p r i o r i t y s i t e s t o cr e a t e l o n g -te r m a f f o r d a b i l i t y . 3B Ma k e A D U s E a s i e r + L e s s E x p e n s i v e Fa c i l i t a t e t h e c r e a t i o n of m o r e A D U s . 3D Ut i l i z e P u b l i c l y O w n e d P r o p e r t y Id e n t i f y k e y pr o p e r t i e s t h a t c a n b e u s e d to c r e a t e af f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g . 2C Inv e s t i n C o m m u n i t y L a n d T r u s t s Gr o w t h e C o m m u n i t y L a n d T r u s t m o d e l fo r l o n g -te r m a f f o r d a b i l i t y . 1E He l p T e n a n t s B e c o m e O w n e r s In v e s t i n s h a r e d e q u i t y p r o g r a m s t h a t he l p t e n a n t s b u i l d w e a l t h , i m p r o v e fi n a n c i a l se c u r i t y , a n d he l p t h e m be c o m e o w n e r s . Pa r t n e r f o r A c t i o n 5A Fo r m a C i t y I m p l e m e n t a t i o n T e a m Cr e a t e a c r o s s -de p a r t m e n t t e a m t o ov e r s e e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e Th r i v i n g i n P l a c e s t r a t e g y . 4B De f i n e I n d i c a t o r s / De v e l o p D a t a Sy s t e m s De f i n e k e y i n d i c a t o r s a n d p u t i n pl a c e ne e d e d d a t a s y s t e m s t o t r a c k p r o g r e s s . 5B Pa r t n e r t o C on v e n e a R e g i o n a l A n t i - Di s p l a c e m e n t C o a l i t i o n Re g u l a r l y c o n v e n e k e y p a r t n e r s t o co o r d i n a t e r e g i o n a l a c t i o n o n a n t i - di s p l a c e m e n t i n i t i a t i v e s a n d h o u s i n g . 4A De v e l o p N e w F u n d i n g S o u r c e s a n d Le v e r a g e E x i s t i n g R e s o u r c e s En s u r e on g o i n g fu n d i n g t o pr o v i d e ne e d e d re s o u r c e s f o r a f f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g a n d t e n a n t a s s i s t a n c e . 5C La u n c h O n g o i n g C o m m u n i t y Pa r t n e r s h i p Cr e a t e c r o s s -de p t . t e a m t o c o o r d i n a t e in v e s t m e n t s a n d w o r k i n p a r t n e r s h i p wi t h c o m m u n i t y t o c o u n t e r di s p l a c e m e n t (i n W e s t s i d e , Ba l l p a r k , Ce n t r a l C i t y , a n d Li b e r t y W e l l s a r e a s) . To: Salt Lake City Planning Staff and Commission Re: Petition Numbers: PLNPCM2023-00496 – Douglas Ward Rezone & PLNPCM2023-00639 –General Plan Amendment (GPA) Dear Planning Staff and Commissioners, I strongly support the McGillis School’s request for zoning and plan amendments for the Douglas Ward property from R-2 to Institutional. Please vote to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The McGillis School is a treasured educational institution and wonderful neighbor and partner in the community. This proposal is widely supported by many neighbors and the community council. I am pleased to see that the McGillis School’s leadership is committed to adaptive reuse of the existing building. It has been surplused and de-sanctified by the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, making this possible. With additional space, the school is planning to increase programs that are in high demand. Meanwhile, the two elementary schools in the East Central area, Bennion and Wasatch, are under threat of closure. It it is critical to Thriving in Place and livability for all, including families with young children, to have local schools. McGillis plays an important role in our educational fabric. The location is perfect to make their expansion feasible. The property has functioned as a non-conforming institutional use for religious services for decades. Rezoning to formalize institutional use is logical and consistent with city plans. I find it particularly heartwarming that a school founded on core Jewish values but open to all would have the opportunity to repurpose a building previously used for religious services that was beloved and served the neighborhood and that religious community so well for so many years. Note that I say this as a secular humanist atheist who is committed to pluralism and religious diversity under secular government. This zoning and map amendment is much preferable to likely building demolition for residential housing. Given the value of the parcel, R-2 is simply impractical for all but some sort of McMansions that would be unlikely to be built here with existing zoning anyway. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please approve these amendments. Sincerely, Jen Colby, MPA, personal comments District 4/ECC Resident Attachment 3 Attachment 4 The Board of the East Bench Community Council (EBCC) has reviewed the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI) that are being recommended by the SLC Planning Commission (Commission) to the Salt Lake City Council (Council) for adoption. While the EBCC agrees that there is a need for more affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City, and that all districts within the City have a shared responsibility to make such housing more available, we also think that it is equally important to preserve the character, micro-culture and owner expectations of the various diverse neighborhoods within the City. Moreover, not all neighborhoods have equal access to mass transit or to connector and arterial roadways. Increasing density, without appropriate infrastructure to support this higher density, is inviting failure. Our concerns center on the Single-Family Incentives. Most of the residences and lots within the EBCC district currently are zoned as "single family," namely, R-1/5,000, R-1/7,000, R- 1/12,000, and FR-1, FR-2, and FR-3. The AHI proposes to allow various types of non-single family dwellings within these historically single family neighborhoods, including: (a) Two- family, twin, or duplex homes; (b) 3-4 unit buildings – triplexes or fourplexes; (c) Townhouses, or single family attached units, as sideways rowhouses or rowhouses in groups of 3-4; (d) A second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained; and (e) Cottage developments, which are single family homes in groups of two to eight that are generally arranged in a courtyard layout. We oppose expansion options (b), (c) and (e) above in these neighborhoods, especially because there is inadequate infrastructure for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists to support the higher density that would result. The city has four districts that generally allow two-family or duplex homes in addition to single family homes. These are the R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts. We believe that a more reasonable, measured and accommodating approach, at this time, would be to only allow expansion options (a) and (d) above within the current "single family" zones, and, in addition, include the following restrictions to the extent those restrictions do not exist in the AHI proposal : (1) at least one of the homes on the lot would have to be "owner occupied,” unless the owner is the representative of an estate, LLC, partnership or trust, or a lender that acquires the property through a foreclosure sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure, (2) existing set- backs and height restrictions would have to be maintained, unless adjoining property owners, including those immediately above and below the subject property, consent to a variance, (3) existing parking requirements would be relaxed to permit on-street parking, and (4) one of these units must be designated as an affordable unit and meet the affordability requirements (See 21A.52.050.H.1.c.4 and Table 21A.52.050.G in Attachment A). This modification has the following advantages over the current proposed AHI: (i) it increases the stock of affordable housing, but not to an extreme; (ii) it is more consistent with the existing character, culture, and expectations of current owners; (iii) it prevents existing neighborhoods that are primarily owner-occupied homes from becoming primarily tenant properties with absentee owners, and (iv) while increasing the burden on infrastructure, it does not create an excessive burden. Thus, we urge the Council to reject the AHI proposal in its current form, but support approval of a modification to the AHI as indicated above. Attachment 5