The URL can be used to link to this page

11/14/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION November 14, 2023 Tuesday 3:45 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 3:45 PM Work Session Or immediately following the 2:00 PM Redevelopment Agency Meeting 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 315 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 12:29:33 Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. 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. 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 2.Ordinance: Affordable Housing Incentives Follow-up ~ 4:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives. The proposed amendments would incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives would include administrative design review and additional building height in various zoning districts, planned development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. For more information visit tinyurl.com/AffordableHousingIncentives. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 19, 2023; Tuesday, October 3, 2023; Tuesday, October 10, 2023; Tuesday, November 7, 2023; and Tuesday, November 14, 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 - TBD 3.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 711 and 721 South 1200 East ~ 4:30 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the properties located at 711 and 721 South 1200 East Street from R-2 (Single- and Two- Family Residential District) to I (Institutional District). The proposal also would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposal would allow the use of the existing church building as a school. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District 4. Petitioner: Jim Brewer, Head of the McGillis School. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 4.Resolution: Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Follow-up ~ 4:50 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a resolution that would approve the disbursement of local nonprofit direct assistance grant awards. The Council will review the Community Recovery Committee’s funding recommendations of twenty-three applicants for the $2,000,000 of available one-time awards. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 and Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 5.Ordinance: Local Business Direct Assistance ARPA Grant Awards ~ 5:10 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve the disbursement of local business direct assistance grant awards from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fiscal recovery funds. A business needs to show an economic hardship caused by the pandemic and meet other eligibility and compliance standards per federal ARPA guidance. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 6.Informational: UTA Budget Presentation ~ 5:30 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) about their tentative 2024 annual budget which begins on January 1, 2024. The budget includes $424 million in operating expenses and $230 million in capital investments. The annual budget includes additional Frontrunner service, funding to improve operator recruitment, transit ambassadors on TRAX trains, replacing older high-floor TRAX vehicles, investments in electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, and more Transit app capabilities among many other items. UTA operates across a multi-county service area. Salt Lake City partners with UTA for enhanced services within the City such as frequent service (every 15 minutes) bus routes, Westside on-demand service, 50% off HIVE transit passes for City residents, free transit passes for K-12 public school students, faculty, and a parent or guardian, and the S-Line Streetcar. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 7.Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund – Ocean City Seafood Market Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $90,000 loan for Ocean City Seafood Market at 1701 South State Street from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Ocean City Seafood Market is a local grocer specializing in Asian foods, international foods, and seafood. This loan will assist in the creation of one new job in the next year and the retention of three current jobs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 5, 2023 8.Board Appointment: City and County Building Conservation and Use Committee – Robyn Taylor-Granda ~ 6:15 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Robyn Taylor-Granda prior to considering appointment 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 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 9.Board Appointment: Planning Commission – Landon Kraczek ~ 6:20 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Landon Kraczek prior to considering appointment to the Planning Commission for a term ending November 14, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Standing Items 10.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 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. 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; 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. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 9, 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. Administrative Updates November 14, 2023 www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlacePublic Lands •Donner Trail Park (D6) •Phase 1 engagement done Location Date Time Red Moose Café Nov. 15 10:00 am -12:00 pm Tea Zaanti Nov. 16 3:00 pm –5:00 pm Homeless Resource Fair (Library Square)Nov. 17 9:30 pm –12:00 pm Mayor's Office – Community Office Hours Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com Planning slc.gov/planning Thriving in PlaceMayor’s Office Information Sessions Date Time IN SPANISH -Glendale Mountain View Community Learning Center, Rm 182 Nov. 15 5:30 pm –6:30 pm The Shop, hosted by The Utah Black Chamber Nov. 27 6:00 pm –7:00 pm ACE Grant (Arts, Culture, and Events Fund) Accepting applications through Dec. 1 Homelessness Update Shelters: 801-990-9999 Additional System Information: Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH) endutahhomelessness.org/ salt-lake-valley Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS) jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/ index.html Homeless Resource Center Utilization: •Functionally full Encampment Impact Mitigation: •1700 S River Park, 700 West Resource Fair: •November 17 @ Library Square with Valley Behavioral Health Temporary (Micro) Shelter Community •Buildings are set up •Electricity and Water connected •Exterior Fencing installed State RFP applications open now- Monday, operator selected by the end of the month. Homelessness Update Shelters: 801-990-9999 Additional System Information: Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH) endutahhomelessness.org/ salt-lake-valley Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS) jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/ index.html Winter Shelter Options 24/7 HRC's (additional 175 beds), West Valley Shelter (170), TSC (50-Dec), MVP (165-ASAP) St. Vincent de Paul (65- nightly 7pm-7am) Code Blue: •Declared by State DHHS for counties •Temps (incl. windchill) <15 degrees F •Opens additional shelter beds/ night •SL County, 2nd & 2nd Coalition, HRC's •Offers additional basic needs items •Limits City enforcement of no camping (if no shelter beds are available) during and after event Homelessness Update Shelters: 801-990-9999 Additional System Information: Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH) endutahhomelessness.org/ salt-lake-valley Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS) jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/ index.html COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst DATE: November 14, 2023 RE:Zoning Amendments: Affordable Housing Incentives PLNPCM2019-00658 PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing 1: Sept 19, 2023 Briefing 2: Oct 3, 2023 Briefing 3: Oct 10, 2023 Briefing 4: Nov 7, 2023 Briefing 5: Nov 14, 2023 Set Date: Oct 3, 2023 Public Hearing: Oct 17, 2023 Potential Action: TBD Visit the Council’s Website for more information on various topics relating to affordable housing, including this proposal tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals NEW INFORMATION During the November 7 work session briefing, the Council approved the following straw polls. These changes will be incorporated into the final draft of the ordinance. 1. Amendments to Incentivize Homeownership a. Type A Incentives (single family zoning) •50% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 100% AMI •If an existing structure is preserved, 25% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 100% AMI b. Type B and C Incentives (mid/high density) •10% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI •5% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI 2. Additional Building Height a. Building height for additional stories is defined as “not exceeding 12 ft.” b. Tables will be updated to reflect the updated maximum height for additional stories. Page | 2 3. Application Tracking a. Specific information required for an application is outlined to improve the ability of the Administration to track the application through the process. b. Include a point that provides room to request any other information necessary to demonstrate compliance. Another straw poll failed that would have removed three and four-unit structures from the permitted type of housing allowed in the single-family zones. Council Members decided to put this item on the November 14 agenda for further discussion. The focus of that discussion will be on enforcement, staffing and potential legislative actions. For quick access to the enforcement and reporting & auditing sections of the ordinance, staff has attached the legislative version of the ordinance to memo. See Attachment A. •The enforcement section of the code is found in 21A.52.050.E. Page 17. •The reporting and auditing section is found in 21A.52.050.D. Pages 15-17. The following information was provided for the November 7 briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. NOVEMBER 7 INFORMATION During the October 10 work session, the Council had the opportunity to raise questions about the Affordable Housing Incentives plan. Planning staff has provided responses to the questions raised at that time. Please see Attachment A to review the questions and responses. Changes to the Ordinances During the previous briefings, Council Members supported making specific changes to the ordinance pertaining to incentives for homeownership and additional building height. Additionally, a change was made that would help the Administration better track applications. If the Council supports the following changes they will be added to the final draft. •Home Ownership ▪Affordable homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. •10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; or •5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI •Additional Building Height o Building height for additional stories is defined as “not exceeding 12 ft.” o Tables were updated to reflect the updated maximum height for additional stories. •Application Tracking (page 14) o Specific information required for an application is outlined to improve the ability of the Administration to track the application through the process. Page | 3 Potential Follow up Questions 1. Does the Council support the changes to the draft ordinance pertaining to homeownership, additional building height and application tracking? 2. Does the Council wish to initiate a request for the administration to complete a study to justify a fee for the AHI program? a. Does the Council have concerns that a fee would potentially discourage the construction of affordable housing units? 3. Does the Council want to consider a delayed implementation for the AHI ordinance? a. Planning staff indicates this could be helpful in order to give the Administration time to get the permitting system set up with new requirements. This could also be helpful to get the tracking system up and running or to phase in the ordinance if that is desired. 4. Does the Council wish to include any of the requirements from the Landlord Tenant Program as part of the AHI program? 5. Does the Council with to discuss owner occupied requirements with the Administration? a. Admin staff responded they feel owner occupied requirements would reduce interest from property owners to participate in the AHI program. 6. Does the Council wish to discuss with the Administration the Legislative Action to study of single- family zones and its potential impact on the AHI ordinance? 7. Does the Council wish to ask the Administration to add annual reporting requirements to the ordinance (number of units built, number affordable, homeownership, etc.)? Legislative Action During some of the briefings Council Member Wharton expressed concerns about perceived ambiguousness of city code when it comes to enforcing and limiting the impact on construction on adjacent properties. Council Members expressed general support for initiating a legislative action that would request the Administration provide recommendations to the City Council to clarify the city code. Staff will have a motion ready for consideration at time of potential adoption of the AHI ordinance. The following information was provided for the October 17 briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. October 17 Work Session Information The Council held a follow-up discussion about the Affordable Housing Incentive proposal on October 10. During the discussion, Council Members raised questions about the proposal. Questions included topics such as long-term enforcement and administration of the program, community concerns about neighborhood character, and ways this proposal intends to address the affordable housing crisis. Page | 4 The Mayor’s Administration will work on responding to these questions in the next several weeks. Council staff will add this list of questions to the public packets as soon as it is finalized. A follow-up briefing will be held to discuss the responses and to determine if any changes will be made to the plan. The public hearing is scheduled for October 17. The following information was provided for the October 10 briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. The Council held a follow up briefing on both the Affordable Housing Incentives proposal and the Thriving in Place draft plan during the October 3 work session briefing. The Council decided to hold another work session to give more time to publicly identify any questions and follow-up items. The goal of the briefing will be for Council Members to share requests, and then allow time for Planning to respond and incorporate potential changes before returning for a follow-up briefing in the coming weeks. Council staff and the Administration will track the list, including items raised during the October 3rd briefing, and get written responses to each question/concern for a future briefing. The following information was provided for the October 3 briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. NEW INFORMATION During the September 19 work session, the Council held a briefing on the Affordable Housing Incentives zoning amendment petition. Based on that discussion, several questions were raised, and Council staff is working with the Administration to get responses to those questions. A follow up briefing will be held on October 3 in conjunction with a briefing on the Thriving In Place (TIP) plan. The TIP plan identifies the Affordable Housing Incentives as a priority for implementation and notes funding for new staff will be needed. As part of the discussion on Affordable Housing Incentives, the Council may wish to consider discussing some of the policy questions outlined below. 1. Drafting Administrative Policies and Procedures •During the work session briefing Planning staff mentioned it would take some time to get guidelines and procedures in place to administer the program. Council staff asked for clarification because there was some confusion if that meant design guidelines for the appearance of structures needed to be created. Planning staff clarified they need to create the administrative procedures that outline the process administrative staff will follow to move an application through the process. 2. Design Guidelines •Some questions were raised about how buildings constructed according to the Affordable Housing Incentives would be compatible with neighborhoods and existing development. Page | 5 The draft ordinance notes that base zoning standards apply unless they are specifically modified by this section. However, if there are conflicts with design standards, the more restrictive regulation applies and takes precedence. According to the draft ordinance, the “development regulations are intended to provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for the purpose of making the Affordable Housing Incentives more feasible and compatible with existing development.” (21A.52.H – Development regulations) There are design standards that apply to rowhouses, sideways rowhouses, cottages as well as for the new housing types in single- and two-family zoning districts. 21A.52.H, 1-3 – Development regulations. 3. Staffing Adjustments •Administrative staff said they will be able to initially absorb the anticipated workload that creating and administering this program will require. However, they anticipate they will likely come to the Council in future budgets to request additional staff once the program is up and running. 4. Potential Program Participation Fee •At this time Administration has not proposed to include a fee for the program that will help cover the costs of administering it. However, they noted it is likely a fee can be justified. o Does the Council wish to put in a place holder in the ordinance that anticipates the Administration will return to the Council with a request to put a fee in the City Code? 5. Good Landlord Requirements •Council staff is working with Attorney’s and Planning staff to find out if requirements outlined in the good landlord program can be included as a requirement as part of participation in the Affordable Housing Incentives program. 6. Impact Fee Waiver •Council staff is working with the Attorney’s Office to find out if impact fees can be waived for affordable units that are constructed are part of this program. 7. Licensing Requirements for Apartments with Three or Fewer Units •Staff is working with Attorney’s and Planning staff to confirm if apartment complexes with three or fewer units are required to have a business license and be part of the good landlord program 8. Enforcing fines and compliance with code •Questions have been raised about how the City enforces fines that are levied to bring properties into compliance with City Code. Some questions have been raised about the effectiveness of fines and when the City decides to settle with property owners at levels much lower than their accrued amount. •Council staff is working with the Attorney’s Office to get a response to this question. At the time this staff report was drafted, a response was not yet ready. Staff will update the Council once a response is ready. Page | 6 9. Administering and Enforcement Administering and enforcement of the program was discussed. Planning staff outlined the key provisions related to the enforcement plan: 21A.52.D, E and F •Reporting and Auditing o Property owners must submit an annual report to the Director of CAN by April 30 of each year, demonstrating compliance with the ordinance o That report includes: 1. Property location, tax ID and legal description 2. Property owner name, mailing and email addresses, 3. Information on the dwelling units and tenants receiving incentives includes: a. total number of dwelling units b. number of bedrooms for each unit c. rental rate of each unit d. identify dwelling units that comply with level of affordability identified in the approval process and statement that units are in compliance e. identify change in occupancy to the units, include number of people residing in each unit and change in tenant (Personal data is not required) f. confirm verification for all tenants was performed on annual basis g. identify differences in rent between agreed upon rental rate and actual rent received h. identify instances where an affordable unit was no longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, length of time it was not in compliance and remedy taken to address noncompliance o The CAN director has 30 days to provide written notice to property owners whether they are in compliance or not. o In situations of noncompliance, a property owner has 30 days to come into compliance. If they are unable to do so, they will start paying the fine. •Enforcement o Violations of the restrictive covenant will be investigated and prosecuted 1. A lien may be placed on the property 2. A business license may be revoked •Eligibility o Property owner must enter into a legally binding restrictive covenant which must be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder o Notice of sale shall be provided to the City and the City shall have right of first refusal to any sale of the property. o Affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment restricted o Affordable units must be comparable to market rate units within the development 10. Delayed Adoption for Portions of the Affordable Housing Incentives Amendment Page | 7 Some have asked about the possibility of dividing the Affordable Housing Incentives into separate pieces for adoption. The first piece would be to adopt the RMF/mixed use/institutional zoning initiatives. Then the second would be to adopt changes to the single-family zoning districts. 11. Institutional Zone Amendments There were some questions about what incentives apply to the Institutional zoning district. According to the draft ordinance, housing would be allowed on institutional zoned land. These would include row houses, sideways row houses, cottage developments Additionally, the Institutional zoning district will follow the affordability requirements as outlined in table 21 A.52.050.G (see page 7 below) Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. The following information was provided for the September 19 briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend various sections of the City zoning ordinance by establishing Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI). The proposed amendments would allow the following if requirements for affordable units are met in order to streamline and encourage more units to be built in the City at an affordable rate. See more details on each of these changes starting at the end of page 2, and chart on page 3 to see the level/quantity of affordability required for each: • Permit administrative design review and additional building height between 1-3 stories, depending on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. • Remove the Planned Development requirement for specific modifications and for development in the CS (Community Shopping) zoning districts. • Permit an additional story in the TSA Transition zoning districts and two stories in the TSA Core zoning districts. • Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts. • Allow housing on Institutional zoned land. • Remove the density requirements in the RMF (Residential Multi Family) zoning districts. • On properties currently zoned for single- or two-family homes: o Allow townhomes and housing structures that contain up to 4-unit buildings, Page | 8 o a second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained; o cottage developments; o Allow twin and two-family homes in these zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. The proposal was initially envisioned as an overlay. However, since the incentives are different for various zoning districts, the proposal was changed to a specific section of the zoning ordinance, 21A.52 Zoning Incentives. The Affordable Housing Incentives is proposed to be the first section of this new chapter of the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission held public hearings and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. Additionally, the Planning Commission added a condition that if adopted by the City Council, the incentives plan should be analyzed 24 months after approval, to include a report of the cost and benefits of the changes. Staff note on public notice/engagement: Because of the City-wide breadth and potential impact of this topic, along with the context of the City-wide anti-gentrification study, the Council authorized the mailing of a postcard City-wide, to all residents and property owners, with direction to go to the Council’s main website on the affordable housing topic, that includes information on these issues and others, at tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals POLICY QUESTIONS •Reporting and Enforcement Related Questions o Reporting Requirements – annual reporting and auditing will be a key component of the plan to ensure property owners and builders who use the incentives keep the units at affordable levels. ▪Will the proposed fine structure be enough to ensure compliance by property owners? ▪The Council could consider requiring a biannual report on the affordability compliance of the program. o Option for the City to contract with another entity to administer the program ▪Would the third party be responsible for enforcement? ▪What type of entity might be interested in administering the program? o Will properties that are part of the program be required to get a business license and participate in the Good Landlord Program? o Is there a plan in place to link up the affordable housing with income-restricted individuals, or would the City service as a central resource to connect individuals with housing? •Staffing/Guidelines Questions o The Planning Commission staff report noted additional staff will be needed to administer the program. The Council may wish to ask the Administration when and how they will propose funding this additional staffing, how many FTEs would be needed, and the anticipated timeline to onboard and train those FTEs? o Because this ordinance would go into effect prior to the next budget amendment, is existing staff sufficient to accept any applications that may come in prior to the next budget and ensure compliance with design and affordability objectives? o Is there a possibility this ordinance will go into effect before design guidelines are developed/approved? Would funding be needed to develop those design guidelines? Will the development of the design guidelines be an administrative process, or will they be approved by the Planning Commission? o Does the Administration plan to promote this program to the general public to notify them of the program and potential benefits? Page | 9 o How long might it take for the City to get the necessary affordability and design review structures in place? •Thriving in Place Plan Objectives and Community feedback o The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether there are alternative ways to achieve the goals of this proposal (see page 5). o Given the significant community feedback received to date, the Council may wish to discuss concerns that have been noted by some neighborhoods about the potential for these incentives to result in the demolition of existing housing stock, including existing naturally occurring affordable housing. o The purpose statement of the affordable housing incentives notes design is key to the success of the proposal: Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. Does the Council wish to ask the administration to discuss how design guidelines will be able to help implement this vision? o Based on concerns expressed by some residents, the Council may wish to discuss the benefit of additional housing units with the potential for additional traffic in areas where transit is not readily available. o Based on recent discussion about the lack of family-sized housing with much of the new construction in the city, the Council may wish to discuss if this incentive program has ways to provide more family- sized affordable housing. SUMMARY OF INCENTIVES Pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report outline key changes of the proposed amendment. The list below, from Attachment B Summary of Incentives, is a high-level summary of the key changes, based on the type of zoning district. •Multi-family and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts o Permit additional height, between 1-3 stories (approximately 10’ per story), depending on the zone in various zoning districts that currently permit multifamily housing. •Residential Multifamily Zoning Districts o Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, o No additional height permitted. o Only 25% of the units could be 500 square feet or smaller. o Add development and design standards for rowhouses, sideways rowhouses, cottages, and other building forms. •Single- and Two-family Zoning Districts o Allow additional building types in single- and two-family zoning districts, provided 1-2 of the units would be affordable. o Allow townhouses in groups of up to four, 3–4-unit buildings, and cottage developments on parcels that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes. o Twin and two-family homes would be permitted in the zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. o Add development and design standards for these dwellings. •Other Incentives o Waive the Planned Development process for some proposals Page | 10 o Allow single-family and single-family attached housing on Institutional zoned land. Future zoning amendments may be considered to allow multifamily housing. o Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts to encourage the redevelopment of underutilized commercial land. These districts currently permit multifamily housing, but not single-family dwellings, including single-family attached units, or cottages. •Affordability requirements - Planning staff worked with developers to come up with a model that would provide sufficient return on development to incentivize the development of affordable units in various projects. Table 21A.52.050.G of the ordinance outlines the recommendation based on that analysis. Attachment G of the Planning Commission staff report includes a summary of the proforma and scenario analyses. See the table on the next page. Table 21A.52.050.G Incentive Type Types Incentives Type A. Applicable to the single- and two-family zoning districts: FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3. Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable. Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained as required in 21A.52.050.H.1.c. Type B. Applicable to residential multifamily zoning districts: RMF- 30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria: 1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; 2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or 3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: An affordable homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI Type C. Applicable to zoning districts not otherwise specified. Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 7. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 8. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 9. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI Page | 11 and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 10. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 11. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 12. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 13. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. COMMUNITY OUTREACH Pages 2-3 of the transmittal summarize outreach efforts Planning conducted to get feedback from the community on the proposed change. Outreach efforts included: online surveys, developer discussion, recognized community organization outreach, and open houses, both in person and online. The Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission both reviewed the proposed changes. The Planning Commission held public hearings in May 2022 and March 2023. Additionally, in the fall and winter of 2022/2023 the Mayor convened a focus group that included 15-20 members of the community, including neighborhood leaders, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates. The group reviewed and discussed topics with the most community concerns over four meetings in the fall and winter of 2022. Based on the focus group’s recommendations, changes were made to the final draft. Their recommended changes to the proposal are detailed in the Planning staff’s report and highlighted on pages 7-9 of Attachment A – Updated Affordable Housing Incentives March 2023 to this memo. As noted above, the Council also authorized a City-wide postcard to notify residents and property owners about this proposal as well as the City-wide anti-gentrification plan. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL The Affordable Housing Incentives amendments are intended to encourage the development, construction, and preservation of housing in the city through a variety of methods, including allowing for additional height, reducing parking requirements, allowing additional housing types, and providing planning process waivers or modifications. Purpose The purpose statement of the Affordable Housing Incentives section reads as follows: To encourage the development of affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would Page | 12 otherwise be permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. There are two primary goals of the Affordable Housing Incentives: 1. Help public and private dollars that go into building affordable housing create more housing units. 2. Create additional opportunities for property owners to provide new, affordable housing units. (April 26, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 2) Affordable Housing Definition The draft ordinance provides the following definition for affordable housing: Shall be both income and, as applicable, rent restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable housing units must accommodate (30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities) at least one of the following categories: a.Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to 30% AMI; b.Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than 30% and up to 50% AMI; or c.Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up to 80% AMI Preservation of Existing Housing The Affordable Housing Incentives adds provisions to encourage preservation of existing housing. This includes allowing a second, detached dwelling on a property when the existing dwelling is maintained. Key Concepts Discussed with the Planning Commission Pages 2-3 of the transmittal letter outline the key considerations of the draft amendments discussed with the Planning Commission. A short summary is provided below. See pages 7-14 for full analysis. 1.Implementation of city goals and policies identified in adopted plans a. Planning staff found the proposed amendments are consistent with principles and polices of Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC 2.Affordability level and percentage of units a. See chart on page 3 above. 3.Neighborhood Impacts The focus group discussed several mitigation options based on comments from the Planning Commission and the public and came to a consensus on the following recommendations: •The removal of the proximity to transit and adjacency to arterial roads requirement for additional housing types in the single- and two-family zoning districts. •Emphasis on the preservation of existing housing •Additional design standards for new housing types in single- and two-family zoning districts 4.Administration and Enforcement Page | 13 a. Administrative staff anticipates additional staff will be needed to administer the program based on the number of projects that use the affordable housing incentive program. b. Language is included in the draft ordinance that would enable the City to contract with a third party for administration on the incentives. c. Language on reporting, compliance, and enforcement are included in the ordinance. The properties using the AHI would be required to submit an annual report, and a restrictive covenant would be placed on the property. 5.Infrastructure impacts a. If a water, sewer, or storm drain line does not have adequate capacity for new housing units, a developer is required to increase the capacity. This is handled during the building permit process. b. Planning staff also worked with Public Utilities to determine the impact this proposal may have on water supply and demand in the city. Public Utilities provided scenarios for different types of potential development that would result from the proposed changes. i. Average usage for single-family residential dwellings is between 12,000-15,000 gallons per month. 1. Much of this is for outdoor watering and in the winter water usage is approximately 6,500-7,000 gallons per month. ii. A sampling of high-rise and wood frame construction with a total of about 725 units averaged water usage of approximately 2,000 gallons per month, per unit. iii. Two fourplexes and a cottage court (10 units) averaged approximately 3,000 gallons per month, per unit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant 9 to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658 pertaining to zoning incentives and affordable housing 10 incentives. 11 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held 12 public hearings on May 11, 2022 and April 26, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by former 13 Salt Lake City Mayor, Jackie Biskupski (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658) to amend various 14 sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code adding zoning incentives and affordable housing 15 incentives; and 16 WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 17 transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said 18 petition; and 19 20 of the affordable housing incentives 24 months following adoption; and 21 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that 22 adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. WHEREAS, the City Council requests a report on costs and benefits of implementation 23 24 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.20.040. That Section 25 21A.20.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Enforcement: Civil Fines) shall be and hereby is 26 amended to read as follows: 1 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 A. If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for those properties legally used for purposes that are solely residential uses, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day per violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses. B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in excess of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.A. That 39 Subsection 21A.24.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/12,000 40 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 41 A. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size or larger. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 50 51 SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.A. That 52 Subsection 21A.24.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/7,000 53 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 54 A. 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 63 2 64 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.A. That 65 Subsection 21A.24.070.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/5,000 66 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 67 A. 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 76 77 SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.A. That 78 Subsection 21A.24.110.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-2 Single- and 79 Two-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 80 A. 81 82 83 84 Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District is to preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of predominantly single- and two-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play and to promote sustainable and compatible development patterns. 85 86 87 88 SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.170.F. That 89 Subsection 21A.24.170.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-MU 90 Residential/Mixed Use District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 91 F. 92 93 94 95 Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections F1 and F2 of this section. Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75'), up to a maximum of one hundred twenty five feet (125'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title) and provided, that the proposed height is located within the one hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone indicated in the map located in subsection F3 of this section. 96 97 98 99 1. 2. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45'). Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use 100 buildings of residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors. 3 101 102 103 3.One hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone map for the R-MU District: 104 105 FIGURE 21A.24.170.F.3 106 107 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2. That 108 Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: TSA Transit 109 Station Area District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows (Table 21A.26.078.E.2 and 110 all notes thereto shall remain and are not amended herein): 4 111 2. 112 113 Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in table 21A.26.078.E.2, "Building Height Regulations", of this subsection E.2. The following exceptions apply: 114 115 116 a. The minimum building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or private street. The building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty percent (50%) of the width of the street facing building wall. 117 118 119 120 b. Projects that achieve a development score that qualifies for administrative review are eligible for an increase in height. The increase shall be limited to one story of habitable space. The height of the additional story shall be equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. This is in addition to the height authorized elsewhere in this title.121 122 123 SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Table 21A.27.040.C. That Table 124 21A.27.040.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-SC and FB-SE Form 125 Based Special Purpose Corridor District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 126 127 FB- Permitted Building Forms Multi-Family And Maximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 ft. An additional 15 ft. in height (for a total height of 75 ft.) may be permitted for residential uses if a Limitation on commercial uses Front and corner Greenway Commercial or nonresidential uses are limited to the first 3 stories and a height of 45 ft. This limitation does not apply to hotel/motel uses, which are limited to the maximum height of 75 ft. F Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 15 ft. side yard setback Neighborhood Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. Avenue Boulevard Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 10 ft. Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. B Required built-to Minimum of 50% of any street facing facade shall be built to the minimum setback line. At least 10% of any street facing facade shall be built to the maximum setback line. S Interior side yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no 5 minimum setback is required. See illustration below. R Rear yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no minimum setback is required. See illustration below. L Minimum lot size W Minimum lot width 4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density. 50 ft. DU Dwelling units per building form No minimum or maximum. Bf Number of building forms per lot 1 building form permitted for every 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area provided all building forms have frontage on a street. 128 129 130 131 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 132 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 133 Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use 134 category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional 135 Uses for Residential Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use 136 category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 6 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/ 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 R-1/R-1/R-1/ SR- SR- SR- R- RMF- RMF- RMF- RMF- RB R-R-R-RO P 1 2 3 2 30 35 45 75 MU- MU- MU 35 P 45 PAffordable Housing Incentives Development P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 137 7 138 SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 139 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 140 Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use 141 category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional 142 Uses for Commercial Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use 143 category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 8 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District CN P CB P CS1 CC P CSHBD1 CG P SNB PAffordable Housing P P Incentives Development 145 9 146 SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 147 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 148 Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add 149 the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and 150 Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts, in alphabetical order with other use 151 categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 152 10 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District TSA-UN TSA-MUEC Core Transition Core Transition TSA-UC Transition TSA-SP Core TransitionCore Affordable Housing Incentives Development P P P P P P P P 153 11 154 SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 155 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 156 Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use 157 category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and 158 Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the 159 table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District D-1 P D-2 P D-3 P D-4 PAffordable Housing Incentives Development 160 161 SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 162 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 163 Conditional Uses in the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use 164 category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional 165 Uses for the Gateway District, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: Use G-MU Affordable Housing Incentives Development P 166 167 SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section 168 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 169 Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use 170 category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional 171 Uses for Special Purpose Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 12 172 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS PL PL-2A I UI MH EI MU Affordable Housing P Incentives Development 173 13 174 SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 175 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and 176 Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use 177 category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional 178 Uses for Form Based Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 179 [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to 180 Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.] Use Permitted Uses By District FB-UN1 P FB-UN2 FB-UN3 P FB-SC FB-SE PAffordable Housing Incentives Development P P 181 182 [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant 183 to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should 184 be codified.] Use Permitted Uses By District FB-UN1 P FB-UN2 P FB-SC P FB-SE PAffordable Housing Incentives Development 185 186 SECTION 16. Creating a new Chapter 21A.52 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of 187 the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning Incentives) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new 188 Chapter 21A.52 Zoning Incentives and shall read as follows: 189 21A.52.010 PURPOSE: 190 The purpose of this chapter is to establish zoning incentives to support achieving adopted goals 191 within the City’s adopted plans and policy documents. 192 21A.52.020 APPLICABILITY: 193 This chapter applies as indicated within each subsection. 194 21A.52.030 RELATIONSHIP TO BASE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY 195 ZONING DISTRICTS: 14 196 Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, all base zoning district or overlay zoning district 197 standards and requirements take precedence except as indicated in this section. 198 21A.52.040 APPROVAL PROCESS: 199 Any process required by this title shall apply to this chapter unless specifically exempt or 200 modified within this chapter. 201 202 203 204 205 A. B. C. The Planned Development process in 21A.55 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. The Design Review process in 21A.59 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. Developments authorized by this chapter are exempt from 21A.10.020.B.1. 206 21A.52.050 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES: 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 A.Purpose: The Affordable Housing Incentives encourage the development of affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. Applicability: The provisions in this section provide optional incentives to development projects that include affordable housing units. Unless specifically stated below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or overlay districts shall apply. B. C. D. Uses: Additional housing types are allowed in zones subject to compliance with this section. Reporting and Auditing: Property owners who use the incentives of this chapter are required to provide a report that demonstrates compliance with this section and any additional approvals associated with the use of incentives. The report shall be submitted annually by April 30th and shall be reflective of the financial status at the end of the previous calendar year. The report shall be submitted to the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or successor. 1. Annual Report and Auditing: Each property owner shall submit a report that demonstrates compliance with this chapter. a. If applicable, the property owner shall submit a copy of the annual report(s) provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or similar funding source as determined by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods, or successors, confirming compliance with affordable housing conditions, including tenant income and rent rates. b. If an annual report is not submitted as required in 21A.52.050.D.1.a above, the property owner shall provide a report that includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) The property location, tax ID number, and legal description. (2) Property owner name, mailing address, and email address. (3) Information on the dwelling units and tenants of the property receiving the incentives that includes: 15 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 (A) The total number of dwelling units (B) The number of bedrooms of each dwelling unit (C) The rental rate of each dwelling unit (D)Identify the dwelling units that comply with the level of affordability identified in the approval to use the incentives and a statement that the dwelling units are in compliance with the approval requirements. (E) Identify any change in occupancy to the units that are required to be affordable under this section, including a change in the number of people residing in each unit and any change in tenant. Personal data is not required to be submitted. (F) Confirm that income verification for all tenants was performed on an annual basis. (G)Identify any differences in rent between the agreed upon rental rate in the approval to use the incentives and the actual rent received for the identified affordable dwelling units. (H)Identify any instance where an affordable dwelling unit was no longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, the length of time the dwelling unit was not in compliance with the agreed upon level of affordability, and any remedy that was taken to address the noncompliance. 2. Review of Annual Report: The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall review the report to determine if the report is complete. 3. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete report, the Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall provide the property owner with written notice that: a. Identifies whether the property is in compliance. b. Identify any deficiency in the information provided by the owner. c. Assesses any penalty that is due as a result of an identified noncompliance. 4. After receipt of the notice from the Director of Community and Neighborhoods that indicates noncompliance, the property owner shall: a. Cure the identified noncompliance within 30 days of such notice and concurrently submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance; or (1) Property owners can request an extension in writing prior to the expiration of the 30-day cure period identified above. The request shall include an explanation of the efforts to correct the non-compliance and the reason the extension is needed. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods will review and determine if the timeframe and extension are appropriate and whether or not fines shall be stayed during any approved extension. Upon expiration of the extension granted by the Director the property owner shall submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance. b. Pay any fine or fee that is assessed pursuant to 21A.20.040 due to any noncompliance within 14 days of achieving compliance. Any fine or fee shall 16 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 be assessed from the first identified date that the property is not in compliance. 5. The city may contract with another entity for review of the requirements in this section. 6. Violations of this Chapter shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20, except as set forth below in 21A.52.050.E. E.Enforcement: Violations of this Chapter, or the restrictive covenant on the property as set forth in 21A.52.050.F.1, shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20. The city shall have the additional remedies for violations as set forth below. 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 1. Lien on Property. If the property owner fails to make payment of the outstanding fines, then after 90 days or when fines reach $5,000, the division will issue a statement of outstanding fines. If the property owner fails to make payment within 14 days, then the division may certify the fines set forth in the statement to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, the amount entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the treasurer of the county in which the property is located at the time of the payment of general taxes. Upon payment of the amount set forth in the statement, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax receipt issued by the treasurer. 2. Revocation of Business License. Upon a determination of the division that the property is in violation of this Chapter the city may suspend or revoke the business license associated with the property. Any suspension or revocation of a license shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or his/her successor. The licensee shall be given at least 14 days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with the nature of the charges against the licensee. The licensee may appear in person or through an officer, agent or attorney, to introduce evidence on the licensee’s behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall make a decision based upon the evidence introduced at the hearing and issue a written decision. The licensee may appeal to an appeals hearing officer and thereafter to district court pursuant to 21A.16. If the license is revoked or suspended it shall thereafter be unlawful for any person to engage in or use, or permit to be used any property for any business with respect to which the license has been suspended or revoked until a license shall be granted upon appeal or due to the property’s compliance with this Chapter. No person whose license has been revoked, and no person associated or connected with such person in the conduct of such business, shall be granted a license for the same purpose for a period of six months after the revocation has occurred. The Director may, for good cause, waive the prohibition against persons formerly associated or connected with an individual who has had a license revoked. 328 329 F.Eligibility Standards: Developments shall meet the criteria below to be eligible for the authorized incentives: 17 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 1.Restrictive Covenant Required: a.Any owner who uses the incentives of this chapter shall enter into a legally binding restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be approved by the city attorney. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of a building using the incentives, the restrictive covenant shall be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The agreement shall provide for the following, without limitation: acknowledge the use of the incentives, the nature of the approval and any conditions thereof, the affordability requirements, the terms of compliance with all applicable regulations, shall guarantee compliance for a term of 30 years, and the potential enforcement actions for any violation of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded on the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, guarantees that the affordability criteria will be met for at least 30 years, and is transferrable to any future owner. b.For an affordable homeownership unit, a notice of sale shall be provided to the city and the city shall have a right of first refusal to any sale of the property in accordance with a future sales price that is capped to comply with section 21A.52.050.F.2.b.2 below. 2.The affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment restricted. a. b. Income Restriction - The affordable units shall be made available only to Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for household size). Rent/Housing Payment Restriction (1)For an affordable rental unit, the monthly rent, including all required housing costs per unit, such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units other than charges for optional services, shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the maximum monthly gross rental rate published annually by the Utah Housing Corporation for affordable units located in Salt Lake City for the percentage AMI as applicable for the given affordable unit type. (2)For an affordable homeownership unit, the annualized housing payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income permissible for the AMI as applicable for the given affordable 18 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 unit, assuming a household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. 3. 4. Comparable units: Affordable units shall be comparable to market rate units in the development including entrance location, dispersion throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms (unless otherwise permitted), access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development, or as set forth in the terms of the restrictive covenant. This section does not apply to units in single- and two-family zoning districts. The property owner shall be ineligible for affordable housing incentives pursuant to this Chapter if the property owner or its principals, partners, or agents are under enforcement for any violation of title 11, 18, 20, or 21. 387 388 389 390 391 392 G.Incentives: Developments are eligible for the incentives identified in this section. Table 21A.52.050.G establishes the affordability requirements based on the zoning district of the property. Sections 1 through 4 establish the modifications allowed within each zoning district in order to be eligible for the affordability incentives. To use the incentives, developments shall comply with the criteria applicable to the base zoning districts. 393 Table 21A.52.050.G Incentive Types Types Incentive Type A. Applicable to the single- and Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an two-family zoning districts: FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3. affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable. Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained as required in 21A.52.050.H.1.c. Type B. Applicable to residential multifamily zoning districts: RMF- 30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria: 1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; 2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or 3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: An affordable homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. 19 Type C. Applicable to zoning districts not otherwise specified. Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 1. Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts: The following housing types: twin home and two-family, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in for Type A in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 401 402 403 404 405 406 2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for the RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the RMF-30 zoning district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 407 408 409 410 411 3. Incentives in the CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial, and I Institutional Zoning Districts: a.The following housing types: row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in subsection b. are complied with; 20 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 b.To be eligible for the incentives listed in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G. 4. The following incentives are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G are complied with: a.Administrative design review provided the noticing requirements of 21A.10.020.B and the standards in 21A.59 are met. Early engagement notice requirements to recognized organizations are not applicable. Additional building height as indicated in the following sections:b. (1) Residential districts: Permitted Maximum Height with IncentiveZoning District RMU-35 RMU-45 RB 45’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. 55’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do not apply. RMU RO May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. 423 424 425 (2)Commercial Districts: Zoning District SNB Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CB CN CC CG May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. 45’ with administrative Design Review; additional landscaping may be met by meeting requirements in 21A.52.050.H.3.c.5. May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review for properties in the mapped area in Figure 21A.26.070.G. CSHBD1 CSHBD2 105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 21 TSA- Transition TSA-Core May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. 426 427 428 (3)Form-based districts: 429 [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to 430 Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.] Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN3 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. 431 432 [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant 433 to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should 434 be codified.] 435 Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN2 May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-SC FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. 436 437 438 439 (4)Downtown districts: Zoning District D-1 Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive Administrative Design Review is permitted when a Design Review process is required. D-2 D-3 Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 22 D-4 Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative Design Review in mapped area in 21A.30.045.E.2.b. 440 441 442 (5)Other districts: Zoning District GMU Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. MU 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review. 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 c.Administrative Design Review is permitted for the following: (6)Buildings in the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning district that exceed 20,000 square feet in size. (7)Buildings in the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500 gross square feet of floor area for a first-floor footprint or in excess of 15,000 gross square feet floor area. 5. Planned Developments: A Planned Development is not required when the purpose of the planned development is due to the following reasons cited below, subject to approval by other city departments. If a development proposes any modification that is not listed below, planned development approval is required. To be eligible for the incentives in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for the applicable zoning district in Table 21A.52.040. a.Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be located on a single parcel and are allowed without having public street frontage. This allowance supersedes the restrictions of 21A.36.010.B; Principal buildings with frontage on a paved public alley; Principal buildings with frontage on a private street; Development located in the Community Shopping (CS) “Planned Development Review” in 21A.26.040.C. b. c. d. H.Development Regulations: The following development regulations are intended to provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for the purpose of making the affordable housing incentives more feasible and compatible with existing development. Base zoning standards apply unless specifically modified by this section and are in addition to modifications authorized in subsection 21A.52.050.G. If there are conflicts with design standards, the more restrictive regulation shall apply and take precedence. These standards are not allowed to be modified through the planned development process. 1. Modifications in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts: a.Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. One detached garage 23 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 or covered parking space, no greater than 250 sq. ft. per unit, may be provided for each unit and these structure(s) may exceed the yard and building coverage requirements for accessory structures. When covered parking is provided, the 250 sq. ft. per unit of covered parking may be combined into a single structure for each required parking stall provided. Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. b. c.Density: (1)Lots approved through a planned development prior to the effective date of this chapter are required to go through a major modification of the planned development to use the incentives. Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area, lot width, and lot frontage requirements. (2) (3) (4) An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. Arrangement of dwellings: (A)New dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or a cottage development with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage development. (B)When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling. Any addition must comply with the standards of the base zoning district; however, the addition may contain additional units. 50% of the exterior walls of the existing dwelling, including the front elevation, shall remain as exterior walls. (C)The units shall comply with this section, applicable requirements of the base zoning district, and any applicable overlay district. 2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts the following provisions shall apply: a.Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units. b. 24 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 c.Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. d.Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. 3. In addition to applicable requirements in 1. and 2. above, the following provisions apply to the specific building types listed: a.Row house and Sideways row house (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the building and 6 feet on the other interior side yard unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Number of Units: To qualify for incentives in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, and SR- 1A zoning districts there is a minimum of three and a maximum of four residential dwelling units per building. (3) Building length facing street: (A) The building length shall not exceed 60 feet or the average of the block face, whichever is less, in FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R- 2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts; (B) The building length shall not exceed 100 feet in the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts; and (C) The building length shall not exceed 175 feet in other zoning districts. (4) Building entry facing street: At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for each unit facing the primary street facing façade. All units adjacent to a public street shall have the primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. The entry feature may encroach in the front yard setback, but the encroachment shall not be closer than 5 feet from the front property line. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 25 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) Parking requirement and location: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of the street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. (7) Garage doors facing street: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located along, a public street. (8) Personal outdoor space: Each unit shall have a minimum outdoor space of 60 square feet where the minimum measurement of any side cannot be less than 6 feet. (9) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. (10) Blank wall: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing façade is 15’. (11) Screening of mechanical equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view and sited to minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard area subject to yard location restrictions found in section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, “Obstructions In Required Yards” of this title. 597 Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.a.1 Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House 598 599 Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.b.1 Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House 26 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 b.Cottage Development (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the property line and 6 feet on the other interior side yard, unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district. (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage. (3) Area: No cottage shall have more than 850 square feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area. There is no minimum square foot requirement. (4) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 27 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) (7) Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open space is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space shall be in a courtyard or other common, usable open space. The development shall include landscaping, walkways or other amenities intended to serve the residents of the development. Personal Outdoor Space: In addition to the open space requirement in this section, a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space is required per cottage. The open space shall provide a private yard area for each cottage and will be separated with a fence, hedge, or other visual separation to distinguish the private space. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of a street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. (8) c. In addition to applicable requirements in 21A.52.050.H above, the following provisions apply to all other buildings containing more than two residential units. If the base zone has a greater design standard requirement, that standard applies. (1)Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard setback of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: For housing types not otherwise allowed in the zoning district, a minimum of 10 feet on each side property line, unless a greater setback is required for single-family homes. (C) Rear yards: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the (2) (3) (4) 28 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. (A) Single- and two-family zoning districts: 120 sq. ft. of open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling. (B) All other zoning districts: A minimum of 10% of the land area within the development shall be open space, up to 5,000 square feet. Open space may include courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other similar types of open space amenities. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. (5) d. Single- and Two-family Dwellings: No additional design standards except as identified in 21A.24. e. Unit Limits: For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units. f. Lots without public street frontage may be created to accommodate developments without planned development approval subject to the following standards: (1)Required yards shall be applied to the overall development site not individual lots within the development. The front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped yards; Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development not individual lots within the development; and Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the development are permitted on any lot within the development. The subdivision shall be finalized with a final plat and the final plat shall document that the new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway or private street; and (2) (3) (4) (5)An entity, such as a homeowner association, must be established for the operation and maintenance of any common infrastructure. Documentation establishing that entity must be recorded with the final plat. SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1. That 711 Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Planned Developments: Purpose 712 Statements) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 29 713 714 715 716 717 1. At least twenty percent (20%) of the housing must be for those with incomes that are at or below eighty percent (80%) of the area median income. Affordable housing that meets the requirements of 21A.52.050. SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 718 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 719 hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list 720 in alphabetical order: 721 Affordable Housing 722 Affordable Housing Incentives Development 723 Dwelling, Three-family 724 Dwelling, Four-family 725 Dwelling, Row House 726 Dwelling, Sideways Row House 727 Dwelling, Cottage Development 728 729 SECTION 19. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That 730 Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Definitions: Definitions of Terms), shall 731 be and hereby is amended as follows: 732 733 734 a. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Affordable housing shall be both income and, as applicable, rent-restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable (30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities) housing units must accommodate at least one of the following categories: a. Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to 30% AMI; b. Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than 30% and up to 50% AMI; or 30 747 748 749 750 c. Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up to 80% AMI. b. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT: A housing development that meets the criteria in 21A.52.050. c. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY.” That the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 758 759 760 DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A detached building containing three dwelling units. 761 762 763 764 d. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY.” That the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY: A detached building containing four dwelling units. 765 766 767 e. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 768 769 770 771 DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. 772 773 774 f. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 31 775 776 777 778 DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a side yard as opposed to the front yard. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. 779 780 781 g. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 782 783 784 785 DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT: A cottage development is a unified development that contains a minimum of two and a maximum of eight detached dwelling units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or open space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot. 786 787 SECTION 20. That the “ZONING FEES” section of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee 788 Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to add the fees set forth in the 789 attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule 790 shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. 791 SECTION 21. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first 792 publication. 793 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2023. 794 795 ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON796 797 ATTEST: 798 799 ______________________________ 800 CITY RECORDER 801 802 803 804 32 805 806 807 808 809 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed 810 811 812 813 ______________________________ MAYOR 814 815 ______________________________ 816 CITY RECORDER 817 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office 818 (SEAL) 819 Date:___________________________ 820 Bill No. ________ of 2023. 821 Published: ______________.By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney822823Ordinance creating zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives 33 824 EXHIBIT A 825 826 Service Fee Additional Information Section Affordable Housing Incentives Fines Noncompliance violation $100/affordable Plus rental difference unit/day 21A.20.040.B 827 34 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 08/08/2023________________________ Lisa Shaffer (Aug 8, 2023 16:33 MDT) Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _0_8_/0_8_/_2_0_2 3_________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Incentives STAFF CONTACT: Sara Javoronok, AICP Senior Planner sara.javoronok@slcgov.com, 801-535-7625 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None. However, implementation of the amendments may require additional staff and resources. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Former Mayor Jackie Biskupski initiated the text amendment in 2019. The Affordable Housing Incentives (AHI) are proposed for the city’s zoning code to incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The proposed amendments include the following if requirements for affordable units are met: • Permit administrative design review and additional building height between 1-3 stories, depending on the zone, in various zoning districts that permit multifamily housing. • Remove the Planned Development requirement for specific modifications and for development in the CS zoning districts. • Permit an additional story in the TSA Transition zoning districts and two stories in the TSA Core zoning districts. 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 • Allow additional housing types in the CG (General Commercial), CC (Community Commercial), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts. • Allow housing on Institutional zoned land. • Remove the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts. • Allow townhouses, 3-4 unit buildings, a second detached dwelling when an existing dwelling is maintained, and cottage developments on properties that are currently zoned for single- or two-family homes. Permit twin and two-family homes in these zoning districts where they are not currently allowed. The project was initiated in 2019 to address increasing concerns regarding housing affordability and to implement Growing SLC. Initial outreach on the proposal included an online survey in late 2019/early 2020. From the initial survey results, staff developed a draft framework for the AHI that serves as the basis for the current proposal. Staff requested additional feedback from the community in a survey on the draft framework. Based on this feedback, developed draft the initial AHI text amendments. Staff presented these initial draft amendments to the community in the spring of 2022 and to the Planning Commission and public at a hearing in May 2022. Following the hearing, staff worked with developers and a focus group convened by the Office of the Mayor to address and revise the draft based on the issues raised. The revisions also incorporate changes from the now adopted RMF-30 and pending Downtown Building Heights text amendments. Staff presented a revised draft to the Planning Commission for discussion on March 22, 2023 and March 29, 2023. The Historic Landmark Commission held a work session on April 6, 2023. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council on April 26, 2023. The Planning Commission added a condition that the incentives be analyzed 24 months after approval with a full report of the costs and benefits of the implementation to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the application was initiated: Online Surveys and Comment Form: • December-January 2020 – Planning staff posted an initial survey seeking feedback on housing issues. Over 2,100 people responded. • July 2020 – Planning staff presented a draft proposal in a Story Map and sought feedback on the proposal. Nearly 300 people responded. • February 2022 – Planning staff posted the draft amendments and sought feedback through a comment form. Approximately 130 people responded. • March 2023 – Planning staff posted an updated draft of the proposed amendments and sought feedback through the comment form. Two people responded for a total of approximately 175 since February 2022. Developer Discussions: Planning staff met with several affordable housing developers in 2019 to discuss issues and obstacles to building affordable housing in the community and how zoning may be able to address them. Developers generally indicated that by right processes were best, there should be parking reductions especially for lowest incomes, density limits made development difficult in the RMF districts, additional height was needed in many zoning districts, and there was a preference for form-based zoning districts. Staff requested feedback from developers on the draft proposal and generally heard that the incentives would allow them to construct more units and that the incentives in the single-family zoning districts may encourage smaller developers to construct units. Recognized Community Organization Notice and Meetings: • June 25, 2020 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was sent citywide. o July 20, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use and Zoning meeting (Zoom). o August 6, 2020 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting (Zoom). • March 3, 2022 – The 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations was sent citywide. o March 16, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the East Bench Community Council meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with loss of views, view easements, and wanted to be notified of potential projects in the neighborhood. o March 21, 2022 - Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use Committee meeting (Zoom). Members expressed concerns with additional housing types proposed, especially in the Highland Park neighborhood, lack of parking, lack of utility capacity, loss of neighborhood character, increase in rental housing, and desire for the proposal to be implemented as a smaller, pilot program. o April 7, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members want to see more owner-occupied housing in the neighborhood, expressed concerns with additional height in the FB districts, have concerns with existing parking requirements in the FB zones, and have general parking and safety concerns. o April 13, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Jordan Meadows/Westpointe Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members asked questions about parking and how the increased number of students and increased park usage would be addressed. o April 14, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Yalecrest Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community members asked questions about historic districts and how the proposal would affect them, required parking, accessory dwelling units, rental units, and neighborhood character. o May 4, 2022 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Greater Avenues Community Council meeting (Zoom). Community member questions included affordability levels, the Planning Commission meeting and how to submit comments if not able to attend, and the monitoring of the deed restricted properties. o March 16, 2023 – Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Salt Lake City Community Network meeting (Zoom). Open Houses and Virtual Events: • July 9, 2020 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook. It reached 4,365 people with 1,423 3-second video views and 52 comments. • February 16, 2022 – Facebook Live Q&A – Planning staff hosted an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook. It reached 772 people with 401 3-second video views and 71 reactions, shares, and comments. • April 5, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. There were no attendees. • April 5, 2022 – Open House (Sugar House Fire Station #3) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Seven people attended. • April 12, 2022 – Open House (Unity Center) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. Three people attended. • April 14, 2022 – Virtual Office Hours (Zoom) – Planning staff hosted an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. No one attended. • April 19, 2022 – Open House (Riverside Park) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. No one attended. • April 21, 2022 – Open House (Lindsey Gardens Park) – Planning staff hosted an open house to provide information and answer questions on the proposal. One person attended. The Glendale and Sugar House Community Councils submitted letters. Community Notification: The City Council office sent a flyer to commercial and residential addresses in the city and owners that live outside of Salt Lake City. It identified housing initiatives in the city and highlighted this proposal. A total of 99,832 were sent. Focus Group: The Office of the Mayor convened a focus group that included 15-20 members. It was comprised of neighborhood leaders, developers, policy advisors, and housing advocates. The group reviewed and discussed topics with the most community concerns over four meetings in the fall and winter of 2022. They made several recommended changes to proposal detailed in the planning staff’s report. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of May 11, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of May 11, 2022 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of May 11, 2022 (Click to Access Report) d) PC Agenda of March 22, 2023 (Click to Access) e) PC Minutes of March 22, 2023 (Click to Access) f) Planning Commission Memo of March 22, 2023 (Click to Access Memo) g) PC Agenda of March 29, 2023 (Click to Access) h) PC Minutes of March 29, 2023 (Click to Access) i) PC Agenda of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) j) PC Minutes of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access) k) Planning Commission Staff Report of April 26, 2023 (Click to Access Report) Attachment E EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance: Final and Legislative Versions 2) Project Chronology 3) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 4) Petition Initiation Request 5) Additional Department Comments 6) Public Comment Received after the Planning Commission Staff Report was Published 1. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658 pertaining to zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held public hearings on May 11, 2022 and April 26, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by former Salt Lake City Mayor, Jackie Biskupski (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658) to amend various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code adding zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives; and WHEREAS, at its April 26, 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, the City Council requests a report on costs and benefits of implementation of the affordable housing incentives 24 months following adoption; 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 Section 21A.20.040. That Section 21A.20.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Enforcement: Civil Fines) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1 A. If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for those properties legally used for purposes that are solely residential uses, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day per violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses. B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in excess of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.A. That Subsection 21A.24.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/12,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on lots twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size or larger. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.A. That Subsection 21A.24.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/7,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.A. That Subsection 21A.24.070.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/5,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 2 A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.A. That Subsection 21A.24.110.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-2 Single- and Two-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District is to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of predominantly single- and two-family dwellings. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play and to promote sustainable and compatible development patterns. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.170.F. That Subsection 21A.24.170.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: F.Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections F1 and F2 of this section. 1. 2. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45'). Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use buildings of residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors. SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2. That Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: TSA Transit Station Area District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows (Table 21A.26.078.E.2 and all notes thereto shall remain and are not amended herein): 2.Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in table 21A.26.078.E.2, "Building Height Regulations", of this subsection E.2. The minimum 3 building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or private street. The building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty percent (50%) of the width of the street facing building wall. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Table 21A.27.040.C. That Table 21A.27.040.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-SC and FB-SE Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: TABLE 21A.27.040.Cꢀ FB-SC BUILDING FORM STANDARDSꢀ Permitted Building Forms Multi-Family And Storefront ꢀ H ꢀ Maximum building height ꢀMaximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 ft. Limitation on commercial uses Commercial or nonresidential uses are limited to the first 3 stories and a height of 45 ft. This limitation does not apply to hotel/motel uses, which are limited to the maximum height of 75 ft. F Front and corner Greenway side yard setback Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 15 ft. Neighborhood Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. Avenue Boulevard Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 10 ft. Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. B Required built-to Minimum of 50% of any street facing facade shall be built to the minimum setback line. At least 10% of any street facing facade shall be built to the maximum setback line. S Interior side yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no minimum setback is required. See illustration below. R Rear yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no minimum setback is required. See illustration below. L Minimum lot size 4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density. 4 W Minimum lot width 50 ft. DU Dwelling units per building form No minimum or maximum. Bf Number of building forms per lot 1 building form permitted for every 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area provided all building forms have frontage on a street. SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 5 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/R-1/R-1/R-1/ SR- SR- SR- R- RMF- RMF- RMF- RMF- RB R-R-R- RO 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 1 2 3 2 30 35 45 75 MU- MU- MU 35 P 45 PAffordable Housing P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Incentives Development 6 SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 7 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District CN P CB P CS1 P CC P CSHBD1 CG P SNB PAffordable Housing P Incentives Development 8 SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 9 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District TSA-UN TSA-MUEC Core Transition Core Transition TSA-UC Transition TSA-SP Core TransitionCore Affordable Housing Incentives Development P P P P P P P P 10 SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District D-1 P D-2 P D-3 P D-4 PAffordable Housing Incentives Development SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Gateway District, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: Use G-MU Affordable Housing Incentives Development P SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 11 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS PL PL-2A I UI MH EI MU Affordable Housing P Incentives Development 12 SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.] Use Permitted Uses By District FB-UN1 P FB-UN2 FB-UN3 P FB-SC FB-SE PAffordable Housing Incentives Development P P [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should be codified.] Use Permitted Uses By District FB-UN1 P FB-UN2 P FB-SC P FB-SE PAffordable Housing Incentives Development SECTION 16. Creating a new Chapter 21A.52 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning Incentives) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new Chapter 21A.52 Zoning Incentives and shall read as follows: 21A.52.010 PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to establish zoning incentives to support achieving adopted goals within the City’s adopted plans and policy documents. 21A.52.020 APPLICABILITY: This chapter applies as indicated within each subsection. 21A.52.030 RELATIONSHIP TO BASE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS: 13 Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, all base zoning district or overlay zoning district standards and requirements take precedence except as indicated in this section. 21A.52.040 APPROVAL PROCESS: Any process required by this title shall apply to this chapter unless specifically exempt or modified within this chapter. A. B. C. The Planned Development process in 21A.55 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. The Design Review process in 21A.59 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. Developments authorized by this chapter are exempt from 21A.10.020.B.1. 21A.52.050 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES: A.Purpose: The Affordable Housing Incentives encourage the development of affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. B.Applicability: The provisions in this section provide optional incentives to development projects that include affordable housing units. Unless specifically stated below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or overlay districts shall apply. C. D. Uses: Additional housing types are allowed in zones subject to compliance with this section. Reporting and Auditing: Property owners who use the incentives of this chapter are required to provide a report that demonstrates compliance with this section and any additional approvals associated with the use of incentives. The report shall be submitted annually by April 30th and shall be reflective of the financial status at the end of the previous calendar year. The report shall be submitted to the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or successor. 1. Annual Report and Auditing: Each property owner shall submit a report that demonstrates compliance with this chapter. a. If applicable, the property owner shall submit a copy of the annual report(s) provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or similar funding source as determined by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods, or successors, confirming compliance with affordable housing conditions, including tenant income and rent rates. b. If an annual report is not submitted as required in 21A.52.050.D.1.a above, the property owner shall provide a report that includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) The property location, tax ID number, and legal description. (2) Property owner name, mailing address, and email address. (3) Information on the dwelling units and tenants of the property receiving the incentives that includes: 14 (A) The total number of dwelling units (B) The number of bedrooms of each dwelling unit (C) The rental rate of each dwelling unit (D)Identify the dwelling units that comply with the level of affordability identified in the approval to use the incentives and a statement that the dwelling units are in compliance with the approval requirements. (E) Identify any change in occupancy to the units that are required to be affordable under this section, including a change in the number of people residing in each unit and any change in tenant. Personal data is not required to be submitted. (F) Confirm that income verification for all tenants was performed on an annual basis. (G)Identify any differences in rent between the agreed upon rental rate in the approval to use the incentives and the actual rent received for the identified affordable dwelling units. (H)Identify any instance where an affordable dwelling unit was no longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, the length of time the dwelling unit was not in compliance with the agreed upon level of affordability, and any remedy that was taken to address the noncompliance. 2. Review of Annual Report: The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall review the report to determine if the report is complete. 3. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete report, the Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall provide the property owner with written notice that: a. Identifies whether the property is in compliance. b. Identify any deficiency in the information provided by the owner. c. Assesses any penalty that is due as a result of an identified noncompliance. 4. After receipt of the notice from the Director of Community and Neighborhoods that indicates noncompliance, the property owner shall: a. Cure the identified noncompliance within 30 days of such notice and concurrently submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance; or (1) Property owners can request an extension in writing prior to the expiration of the 30-day cure period identified above. The request shall include an explanation of the efforts to correct the non-compliance and the reason the extension is needed. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods will review and determine if the timeframe and extension are appropriate and whether or not fines shall be stayed during any approved extension. Upon expiration of the extension granted by the Director the property owner shall submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance. b. Pay any fine or fee that is assessed pursuant to 21A.20.040 due to any noncompliance within 14 days of achieving compliance. Any fine or fee shall 15 be assessed from the first identified date that the property is not in compliance. 5. The city may contract with another entity for review of the requirements in this section. 6. Violations of this Chapter shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20, except as set forth below in 21A.52.050.E. E.Enforcement: Violations of this Chapter, or the restrictive covenant on the property as set forth in 21A.52.050.F.1, shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20. The city shall have the additional remedies for violations as set forth below. 1. Lien on Property. If the property owner fails to make payment of the outstanding fines, then after 90 days or when fines reach $5,000, the division will issue a statement of outstanding fines. If the property owner fails to make payment within 14 days, then the division may certify the fines set forth in the statement to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, the amount entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the treasurer of the county in which the property is located at the time of the payment of general taxes. Upon payment of the amount set forth in the statement, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax receipt issued by the treasurer. 2. Revocation of Business License. Upon a determination of the division that the property is in violation of this Chapter the city may suspend or revoke the business license associated with the property. Any suspension or revocation of a license shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or his/her successor. The licensee shall be given at least 14 days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with the nature of the charges against the licensee. The licensee may appear in person or through an officer, agent or attorney, to introduce evidence on the licensee’s behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall make a decision based upon the evidence introduced at the hearing and issue a written decision. The licensee may appeal to an appeals hearing officer and thereafter to district court pursuant to 21A.16. If the license is revoked or suspended it shall thereafter be unlawful for any person to engage in or use, or permit to be used any property for any business with respect to which the license has been suspended or revoked until a license shall be granted upon appeal or due to the property’s compliance with this Chapter. No person whose license has been revoked, and no person associated or connected with such person in the conduct of such business, shall be granted a license for the same purpose for a period of six months after the revocation has occurred. The Director may, for good cause, waive the prohibition against persons formerly associated or connected with an individual who has had a license revoked. F.Eligibility Standards: Developments shall meet the criteria below to be eligible for the authorized incentives: 16 1.Restrictive Covenant Required: a.Any owner who uses the incentives of this chapter shall enter into a legally binding restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be approved by the city attorney. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of a building using the incentives, the restrictive covenant shall be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The agreement shall provide for the following, without limitation: acknowledge the use of the incentives, the nature of the approval and any conditions thereof, the affordability requirements, the terms of compliance with all applicable regulations, shall guarantee compliance for a term of 30 years, and the potential enforcement actions for any violation of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded on the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, guarantees that the affordability criteria will be met for at least 30 years, and is transferrable to any future owner. b.For an affordable homeownership unit, a notice of sale shall be provided to the city and the city shall have a right of first refusal to any sale of the property in accordance with a future sales price that is capped to comply with section 21A.52.050.F.2.b.2 below. 2.The affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment restricted. a.Income Restriction - The affordable units shall be made available only to Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for household size). b.Rent/Housing Payment Restriction (1)For an affordable rental unit, the monthly rent, including all required housing costs per unit, such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units other than charges for optional services, shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the maximum monthly gross rental rate published annually by the Utah Housing Corporation for affordable units located in Salt Lake City for the percentage AMI as applicable for the given affordable unit type. (2)For an affordable homeownership unit, the annualized housing payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income permissible for the AMI as applicable for the given affordable 17 unit, assuming a household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. 3. 4. Comparable units: Affordable units shall be comparable to market rate units in the development including entrance location, dispersion throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms (unless otherwise permitted), access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development, or as set forth in the terms of the restrictive covenant. This section does not apply to units in single- and two-family zoning districts. The property owner shall be ineligible for affordable housing incentives pursuant to this Chapter if the property owner or its principals, partners, or agents are under enforcement for any violation of title 11, 18, 20, or 21. G.Incentives: Developments are eligible for the incentives identified in this section. Table 21A.52.050.G establishes the affordability requirements based on the zoning district of the property. Sections 1 through 4 establish the modifications allowed within each zoning district in order to be eligible for the affordability incentives. To use the incentives, developments shall comply with the criteria applicable to the base zoning districts. Table 21A.52.050.G Incentive Types Types Incentive Type A. Applicable to the single- and Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an two-family zoning districts: FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3. affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable. Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained as required in 21A.52.050.H.1.c. Type B. Applicable to residential multifamily zoning districts: RMF- 30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria: 1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; 2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or 3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: An affordable homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. 18 Type C. Applicable to zoning districts not otherwise specified. Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. 1. Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts: The following housing types: twin home and two-family, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in for Type A in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for the RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the RMF-30 zoning district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 3. Incentives in the CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial, and I Institutional Zoning Districts: a.The following housing types: row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in subsection b. are complied with; 19 b.To be eligible for the incentives listed in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G. 4. The following incentives are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G are complied with: a.Administrative design review provided the noticing requirements of 21A.10.020.B and the standards in 21A.59 are met. Early engagement notice requirements to recognized organizations are not applicable. Additional building height as indicated in the following sections:b. (1) Residential districts: Permitted Maximum Height with IncentiveZoning District RMU-35 RMU-45 RB 45’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. 55’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do not apply. RMU RO May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. (2)Commercial Districts: Zoning District SNB Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CB CN CC CG May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. 45’ with administrative Design Review; additional landscaping may be met by meeting requirements in 21A.52.050.H.3.c.5. May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review for properties in the mapped area in Figure 21A.26.070.G. CSHBD1 CSHBD2 105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 20 TSA- Transition May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. TSA-Core May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. (3)Form-based districts: [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.] Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN3 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should be codified.] Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN2 May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-SC FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. (4)Downtown districts: Zoning District D-1 Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive Administrative Design Review is permitted when a Design Review process is required. D-2 D-3 Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 21 D-4 Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative Design Review in mapped area in 21A.30.045.E.2.b. (5)Other districts: Zoning District GMU Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. MU 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review. c.Administrative Design Review is permitted for the following: (6)Buildings in the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning district that exceed 20,000 square feet in size. (7)Buildings in the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500 gross square feet of floor area for a first-floor footprint or in excess of 15,000 gross square feet floor area. 5. Planned Developments: A Planned Development is not required when the purpose of the planned development is due to the following reasons cited below, subject to approval by other city departments. If a development proposes any modification that is not listed below, planned development approval is required. To be eligible for the incentives in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for the applicable zoning district in Table 21A.52.040. a.Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be located on a single parcel and are allowed without having public street frontage. This allowance supersedes the restrictions of 21A.36.010.B; b. c. d. Principal buildings with frontage on a paved public alley; Principal buildings with frontage on a private street; Development located in the Community Shopping (CS) “Planned Development Review” in 21A.26.040.C. H.Development Regulations: The following development regulations are intended to provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for the purpose of making the affordable housing incentives more feasible and compatible with existing development. Base zoning standards apply unless specifically modified by this section and are in addition to modifications authorized in subsection 21A.52.050.G. If there are conflicts with design standards, the more restrictive regulation shall apply and take precedence. These standards are not allowed to be modified through the planned development process. 1. Modifications in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts: a.Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. One detached garage 22 or covered parking space, no greater than 250 sq. ft. per unit, may be provided for each unit and these structure(s) may exceed the yard and building coverage requirements for accessory structures. When covered parking is provided, the 250 sq. ft. per unit of covered parking may be combined into a single structure for each required parking stall provided. b. c. Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. Density: (1)Lots approved through a planned development prior to the effective date of this chapter are required to go through a major modification of the planned development to use the incentives. Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area, lot width, and lot frontage requirements. (2) (3) (4) An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. Arrangement of dwellings: (A)New dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or a cottage development with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage development. (B)When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling. Any addition must comply with the standards of the base zoning district; however, the addition may contain additional units. 50% of the exterior walls of the existing dwelling, including the front elevation, shall remain as exterior walls. (C)The units shall comply with this section, applicable requirements of the base zoning district, and any applicable overlay district. 2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts the following provisions shall apply: a.Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units. b. 23 c.Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. d.Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. 3. In addition to applicable requirements in 1. and 2. above, the following provisions apply to the specific building types listed: a.Row house and Sideways row house (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the building and 6 feet on the other interior side yard unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Number of Units: To qualify for incentives in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, and SR- 1A zoning districts there is a minimum of three and a maximum of four residential dwelling units per building. (3) Building length facing street: (A) The building length shall not exceed 60 feet or the average of the block face, whichever is less, in FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R- 2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts; (B) The building length shall not exceed 100 feet in the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts; and (C) The building length shall not exceed 175 feet in other zoning districts. (4) Building entry facing street: At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for each unit facing the primary street facing façade. All units adjacent to a public street shall have the primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. The entry feature may encroach in the front yard setback, but the encroachment shall not be closer than 5 feet from the front property line. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 24 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) Parking requirement and location: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of the street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. (7) Garage doors facing street: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located along, a public street. (8) Personal outdoor space: Each unit shall have a minimum outdoor space of 60 square feet where the minimum measurement of any side cannot be less than 6 feet. (9) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. (10) Blank wall: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing façade is 15’. (11) Screening of mechanical equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view and sited to minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard area subject to yard location restrictions found in section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, “Obstructions In Required Yards” of this title. Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.a.1 Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.b.1 Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House 25 b.Cottage Development (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the property line and 6 feet on the other interior side yard, unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district. (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage. (3) Area: No cottage shall have more than 850 square feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area. There is no minimum square foot requirement. (4) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 26 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) (7) Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open space is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space shall be in a courtyard or other common, usable open space. The development shall include landscaping, walkways or other amenities intended to serve the residents of the development. Personal Outdoor Space: In addition to the open space requirement in this section, a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space is required per cottage. The open space shall provide a private yard area for each cottage and will be separated with a fence, hedge, or other visual separation to distinguish the private space. (8)Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of a street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. c. In addition to applicable requirements in 21A.52.050.H above, the following provisions apply to all other buildings containing more than two residential units. If the base zone has a greater design standard requirement, that standard applies. (1)Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard setback of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: For housing types not otherwise allowed in the zoning district, a minimum of 10 feet on each side property line, unless a greater setback is required for single-family homes. (C) Rear yards: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2)Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the (3) (4) 27 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (5)Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. (A) Single- and two-family zoning districts: 120 sq. ft. of open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling. (B) All other zoning districts: A minimum of 10% of the land area within the development shall be open space, up to 5,000 square feet. Open space may include courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other similar types of open space amenities. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. d. Single- and Two-family Dwellings: No additional design standards except as identified in 21A.24. e. Unit Limits: For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units. f. Lots without public street frontage may be created to accommodate developments without planned development approval subject to the following standards: (1)Required yards shall be applied to the overall development site not individual lots within the development. The front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped yards; (2) (3) (4) Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development not individual lots within the development; and Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the development are permitted on any lot within the development. The subdivision shall be finalized with a final plat and the final plat shall document that the new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway or private street; and (5)An entity, such as a homeowner association, must be established for the operation and maintenance of any common infrastructure. Documentation establishing that entity must be recorded with the final plat. SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1. That Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Planned Developments: Purpose Statements) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 28 1. Affordable housing that meets the requirements of 21A.52.050. SECTION 18. 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: Affordable Housing Affordable Housing Incentives Development Dwelling, Three-family Dwelling, Four-family Dwelling, Row House Dwelling, Sideways Row House Dwelling, Cottage Development SECTION 19. 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 as follows: a. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Affordable housing shall be both income and, as applicable, rent-restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable (30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities) housing units must accommodate at least one of the following categories: a. Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to 30% AMI; b. Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than 30% and up to 50% AMI; or c. Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up to 80% AMI. 29 b. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT: A housing development that meets the criteria in 21A.52.050. c. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY.” That the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A detached building containing three dwelling units. d. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY.” That the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY: A detached building containing four dwelling units. e. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. f. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each 30 unit faces a side yard as opposed to the front yard. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. g. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT: A cottage development is a unified development that contains a minimum of two and a maximum of eight detached dwelling units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or open space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot. SECTION 20. That the “ZONING FEES” section of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to add the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. SECTION 21. 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: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER 31 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office (SEAL) July 7, 2023 Date:___________________________Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________.By: ________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney Ordinance creating zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives 32 EXHIBIT A Service Fee Additional Information Section Affordable Housing Incentives Fines Noncompliance violation $100/affordable Plus rental difference unit/day 21A.20.040.B 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2023 (An ordinance amending various sections of the Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code establishing a chapter for zoning incentives and adding affordable housing incentives) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658 pertaining to zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives. 9 10 11 12 13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held public hearings on May 11, 2022 and April 26, 2023 to consider a petition submitted by former Salt Lake City Mayor, Jackie Biskupski (Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00658) to amend various 14 sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code adding zoning incentives and affordable housing 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 incentives; and WHEREAS, at its April 26, 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, the City Council requests a report on costs and benefits of implementation of the affordable housing incentives 24 months following adoption; 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. 23 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 24 25 26 SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.20.040. That Section 21A.20.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Enforcement: Civil Fines) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 1 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 A. If the violations are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at twenty five dollars ($25.00) a day per violation for those properties legally used for purposes that are solely residential uses, and one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day per violation for those properties used for purposes that are not residential uses. B. Affordable housing incentives per 21A.52.050: If the violation(s) are not corrected by the citation deadline, civil fines shall accrue at the rate set in the Consolidated Fee Schedule per day per violation. If the violation(s) include renting an affordable rental unit in excess of the approved rental rate then an additional monthly fine shall accrue that is the difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that is agreed to by the applicant at the time of approval for a project using the incentives. SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.050.A. That Subsection 21A.24.050.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/12,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/12,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size or larger. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.060.A. That 52 53 Subsection 21A.24.060.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/7,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 2 64 65 66 SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.070.A. That Subsection 21A.24.070.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-1/5,000 Single-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential dwellings and affordable housing incentives developments with up to four units on residential neighborhoods with lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.110.A. That 78 79 Subsection 21A.24.110.A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-2 Single- and Two-family Residential District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District is to preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of predominantly single- and two-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play and to promote sustainable and compatible development patterns. SECTION 6. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.24.170.F. That 89 Subsection 21A.24.170.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: R-MU 90 Residential/Mixed Use District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 F.Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections F1 and F2 of this section. Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75'), up to a maximum of one hundred twenty five feet (125'), may be authorized through the design review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title) and provided, that the proposed height is located within the one hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone indicated in the map located in subsection F3 of this section. 1. 2. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45'). Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in mixed use buildings of residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors. 3 101 102 103 3.One hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone map for the R-MU District: 104 105 FIGURE 21A.24.170.F.3 106 107 SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2. That Subsection 21A.26.078.E.2 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Commercial Districts: TSA Transit Station Area District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows (Table 21A.26.078.E.2 and all notes thereto shall remain and are not amended herein): 108 109 110 4 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 2.Building Height: The minimum and maximum building heights are found in table 21A.26.078.E.2, "Building Height Regulations", of this subsection E.2. The following exceptions apply: a. The minimum building height applies to all structures that are adjacent to a public or private street. The building shall meet the minimum building height for at least fifty percent (50%) of the width of the street facing building wall. b. Projects that achieve a development score that qualifies for administrative review are eligible for an increase in height. The increase shall be limited to one story of habitable space. The height of the additional story shall be equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. This is in addition to the height authorized elsewhere in this title. SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Table 21A.27.040.C. That Table 124 125 21A.27.040.C of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-SC and FB-SE Form Based Special Purpose Corridor District) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 126 127 TABLE 21A.27.040.Cꢀ FB-SC BUILDING FORM STANDARDSꢀ Permitted Building Forms Multi-Family And Storefront ꢀ H ꢀ Maximum building height ꢀMaximum building height in the FB-SC is 60 ft. An additional 15 ft. in height (for a total height of 75 ft.) may be permitted for residential uses if a minimum of 10% of the units areꢀ affordable housing. ꢀ Limitation on commercial uses Commercial or nonresidential uses are limited to the first 3 stories and a height of 45 ft. This limitation does not apply to hotel/motel uses, which are limited to the maximum height of 75 ft. F Front and corner Greenway side yard setback Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 15 ft. Neighborhood Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. Avenue Boulevard Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of 10 ft. Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of 25 ft. B Required built-to Minimum of 50% of any street facing facade shall be built to the minimum setback line. At least 10% of any street facing facade shall be built to the maximum setback line. S Interior side yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no 5 minimum setback is required. See illustration below. R Rear yard When adjacent to a residential district, a minimum setback of 25% of the lot width, up to 25 ft., is required. Any portion of the building taller than 30 ft. must be stepped back 2 ft. from the required building setback line for every 1 ft. of height over 30 ft. When adjacent to other zoning districts, no minimum setback is required. See illustration below. L Minimum lot size W Minimum lot width 4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to calculate density. 50 ft. DU Dwelling units per building form No minimum or maximum. Bf Number of building forms per lot 1 building form permitted for every 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area provided all building forms have frontage on a street. 128 129 130 131 SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.020. That Section 21A.33.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 132 133 134 135 136 6 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District FR-1/ FR-2/ FR-3/ 43,560 21,780 12,000 12,000 7,000 5,000 R-1/R-1/R-1/ SR- SR- SR- R- RMF- RMF- RMF- RMF- RB R-R-R-RO P 1 2 3 2 30 35 45 75 MU- MU- MU 35 P 45 PAffordable Housing Incentives Development P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 137 7 138 139 140 SECTION 10. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.030. That Section 21A.33.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Commercial Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use 141 category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional 142 143 Uses for Commercial Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 8 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District CN P CB P CS1 CC P CSHBD1 CG P SNB PAffordable Housing P P Incentives Development 145 9 146 147 148 149 150 151 SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.035. That Section 21A.33.035 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Transit Station Area Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 152 10 Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District TSA-UN TSA-MUEC Core Transition Core Transition TSA-UC Transition TSA-SP Core TransitionCore Affordable Housing Incentives Development P P P P P P P P 153 11 154 155 156 157 158 159 SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.050. That Section 21A.33.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Downtown Districts, in alphabetical order with other use categories in the table, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District D-1 P D-2 P D-3 P D-4 PAffordable Housing Incentives Development 160 161 SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.060. That Section 21A.33.060 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Gateway District) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for the Gateway District, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 162 163 164 165 Use G-MU Affordable Housing Incentives Development P 166 167 168 169 170 171 SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 12 172 Use Permitted and Conditional Uses by District RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS PL PL-2A I UI MH EI MU Affordable Housing P Incentives Development 173 13 174 175 176 177 178 SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.080. That Section 21A.33.080 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts) shall be and hereby is amended only to add the use category “Affordable Housing Incentives Development” in the Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Form Based Districts, which use category shall read and appear in that table as follows: 179 180 [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.] Use Permitted Uses By District FB-UN1 P FB-UN2 FB-UN3 P FB-SC FB-SE PAffordable Housing Incentives Development P P 181 182 183 184 [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should be codified.] Use Permitted Uses By District FB-UN1 P FB-UN2 P FB-SC P FB-SE PAffordable Housing Incentives Development 185 186 187 188 SECTION 16. Creating a new Chapter 21A.52 of Salt Lake City Code 21A. Chapter 21A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning Incentives) shall be and hereby is amended to include a new Chapter 21A.52 Zoning Incentives and shall read as follows: 189 21A.52.010 PURPOSE: 190 191 The purpose of this chapter is to establish zoning incentives to support achieving adopted goals within the City’s adopted plans and policy documents. 192 193 21A.52.020 APPLICABILITY: This chapter applies as indicated within each subsection. 194 195 21A.52.030 RELATIONSHIP TO BASE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS: 14 196 197 Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, all base zoning district or overlay zoning district standards and requirements take precedence except as indicated in this section. 198 21A.52.040 APPROVAL PROCESS: 199 200 Any process required by this title shall apply to this chapter unless specifically exempt or modified within this chapter. 201 202 203 204 205 A. B. C. The Planned Development process in 21A.55 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. The Design Review process in 21A.59 may be modified as indicated within this chapter. Developments authorized by this chapter are exempt from 21A.10.020.B.1. 206 21A.52.050 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES: 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 A.Purpose: The Affordable Housing Incentives encourage the development of affordable housing. The provisions within this section facilitate the construction of affordable housing by allowing more inclusive development than would otherwise be permitted in the base zoning districts. Housing constructed using the incentives is intended to be compatible in form with the neighborhood and provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play. Applicability: The provisions in this section provide optional incentives to development projects that include affordable housing units. Unless specifically stated below, all other applicable provisions in the base zoning district or overlay districts shall apply. B. C. D. Uses: Additional housing types are allowed in zones subject to compliance with this section. Reporting and Auditing: Property owners who use the incentives of this chapter are required to provide a report that demonstrates compliance with this section and any additional approvals associated with the use of incentives. The report shall be submitted annually by April 30th and shall be reflective of the financial status at the end of the previous calendar year. The report shall be submitted to the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or successor. 1. Annual Report and Auditing: Each property owner shall submit a report that demonstrates compliance with this chapter. a. If applicable, the property owner shall submit a copy of the annual report(s) provided to Utah Housing Corporation, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect, or similar funding source as determined by the Department of Community and Neighborhoods, or successors, confirming compliance with affordable housing conditions, including tenant income and rent rates. b. If an annual report is not submitted as required in 21A.52.050.D.1.a above, the property owner shall provide a report that includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) The property location, tax ID number, and legal description. (2) Property owner name, mailing address, and email address. (3) Information on the dwelling units and tenants of the property receiving the incentives that includes: 15 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 (A) The total number of dwelling units (B) The number of bedrooms of each dwelling unit (C) The rental rate of each dwelling unit (D)Identify the dwelling units that comply with the level of affordability identified in the approval to use the incentives and a statement that the dwelling units are in compliance with the approval requirements. (E) Identify any change in occupancy to the units that are required to be affordable under this section, including a change in the number of people residing in each unit and any change in tenant. Personal data is not required to be submitted. (F) Confirm that income verification for all tenants was performed on an annual basis. (G)Identify any differences in rent between the agreed upon rental rate in the approval to use the incentives and the actual rent received for the identified affordable dwelling units. (H)Identify any instance where an affordable dwelling unit was no longer rented at the agreed upon level of affordability, the length of time the dwelling unit was not in compliance with the agreed upon level of affordability, and any remedy that was taken to address the noncompliance. 2. Review of Annual Report: The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall review the report to determine if the report is complete. 3. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete report, the Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall provide the property owner with written notice that: a. Identifies whether the property is in compliance. b. Identify any deficiency in the information provided by the owner. c. Assesses any penalty that is due as a result of an identified noncompliance. 4. After receipt of the notice from the Director of Community and Neighborhoods that indicates noncompliance, the property owner shall: a. Cure the identified noncompliance within 30 days of such notice and concurrently submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance; or (1) Property owners can request an extension in writing prior to the expiration of the 30-day cure period identified above. The request shall include an explanation of the efforts to correct the non-compliance and the reason the extension is needed. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods will review and determine if the timeframe and extension are appropriate and whether or not fines shall be stayed during any approved extension. Upon expiration of the extension granted by the Director the property owner shall submit an updated report of then-current operations of the property that demonstrates compliance. b. Pay any fine or fee that is assessed pursuant to 21A.20.040 due to any noncompliance within 14 days of achieving compliance. Any fine or fee shall 16 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 be assessed from the first identified date that the property is not in compliance. 5. The city may contract with another entity for review of the requirements in this section. 6. Violations of this Chapter shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20, except as set forth below in 21A.52.050.E. E.Enforcement: Violations of this Chapter, or the restrictive covenant on the property as set forth in 21A.52.050.F.1, shall be investigated and prosecuted pursuant to 21A.20. The city shall have the additional remedies for violations as set forth below. 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 1. Lien on Property. If the property owner fails to make payment of the outstanding fines, then after 90 days or when fines reach $5,000, the division will issue a statement of outstanding fines. If the property owner fails to make payment within 14 days, then the division may certify the fines set forth in the statement to the Salt Lake County Treasurer. After entry by the Salt Lake County Treasurer, the amount entered shall have the force and effect of a valid judgment of the district court, is a lien on the property, and shall be collected by the treasurer of the county in which the property is located at the time of the payment of general taxes. Upon payment of the amount set forth in the statement, the judgment is satisfied, the lien is released from the property, and receipt shall be acknowledged upon the general tax receipt issued by the treasurer. 2. Revocation of Business License. Upon a determination of the division that the property is in violation of this Chapter the city may suspend or revoke the business license associated with the property. Any suspension or revocation of a license shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before the Director of Community and Neighborhoods or his/her successor. The licensee shall be given at least 14 days’ notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with the nature of the charges against the licensee. The licensee may appear in person or through an officer, agent or attorney, to introduce evidence on the licensee’s behalf, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Director of Community and Neighborhoods shall make a decision based upon the evidence introduced at the hearing and issue a written decision. The licensee may appeal to an appeals hearing officer and thereafter to district court pursuant to 21A.16. If the license is revoked or suspended it shall thereafter be unlawful for any person to engage in or use, or permit to be used any property for any business with respect to which the license has been suspended or revoked until a license shall be granted upon appeal or due to the property’s compliance with this Chapter. No person whose license has been revoked, and no person associated or connected with such person in the conduct of such business, shall be granted a license for the same purpose for a period of six months after the revocation has occurred. The Director may, for good cause, waive the prohibition against persons formerly associated or connected with an individual who has had a license revoked. 328 329 F.Eligibility Standards: Developments shall meet the criteria below to be eligible for the authorized incentives: 17 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 1.Restrictive Covenant Required: a.Any owner who uses the incentives of this chapter shall enter into a legally binding restrictive covenant, the form of which shall be approved by the city attorney. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of a building using the incentives, the restrictive covenant shall be filed with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The agreement shall provide for the following, without limitation: acknowledge the use of the incentives, the nature of the approval and any conditions thereof, the affordability requirements, the terms of compliance with all applicable regulations, shall guarantee compliance for a term of 30 years, and the potential enforcement actions for any violation of the agreement. The agreement shall be recorded on the property with the Salt Lake County Recorder, guarantees that the affordability criteria will be met for at least 30 years, and is transferrable to any future owner. b.For an affordable homeownership unit, a notice of sale shall be provided to the city and the city shall have a right of first refusal to any sale of the property in accordance with a future sales price that is capped to comply with section 21A.52.050.F.2.b.2 below. 2.The affordable units shall be both income and rent/housing payment restricted. a. b. Income Restriction - The affordable units shall be made available only to Eligible Households that are qualifying occupants with an annual income at or below the SLC Area Median Income (“AMI”) as applicable for the given affordable unit for Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area (as periodically determined by the HUD and adjusted for household size). Rent/Housing Payment Restriction (1)For an affordable rental unit, the monthly rent, including all required housing costs per unit, such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all apartment units other than charges for optional services, shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, the maximum monthly gross rental rate published annually by the Utah Housing Corporation for affordable units located in Salt Lake City for the percentage AMI as applicable for the given affordable unit type. (2)For an affordable homeownership unit, the annualized housing payment, including mortgage principal and interest, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, condominium and/or homeowner's association fees, insurance, and parking, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum monthly income permissible for the AMI as applicable for the given affordable 18 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 unit, assuming a household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. 3. 4. Comparable units: Affordable units shall be comparable to market rate units in the development including entrance location, dispersion throughout the building or site, number of bedrooms (unless otherwise permitted), access to all amenities available to the market rate units in the development, or as set forth in the terms of the restrictive covenant. This section does not apply to units in single- and two-family zoning districts. The property owner shall be ineligible for affordable housing incentives pursuant to this Chapter if the property owner or its principals, partners, or agents are under enforcement for any violation of title 11, 18, 20, or 21. 387 388 389 390 391 392 G.Incentives: Developments are eligible for the incentives identified in this section. Table 21A.52.050.G establishes the affordability requirements based on the zoning district of the property. Sections 1 through 4 establish the modifications allowed within each zoning district in order to be eligible for the affordability incentives. To use the incentives, developments shall comply with the criteria applicable to the base zoning districts. 393 Table 21A.52.050.G Incentive Types Types Incentive Type A. Applicable to the single- and Dwelling units shall meet the requirements for an two-family zoning districts: FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3. affordable rental or homeownership unit affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. New construction: At least 50% of the provided dwelling units shall be affordable. Existing building maintained: A minimum of one of the dwelling units shall be affordable provided the existing building is maintained as required in 21A.52.050.H.1.c. Type B. Applicable to residential multifamily zoning districts: RMF- 30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 An affordable rental unit shall meet a minimum of at least one of the following affordability criteria: 1. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 60% AMI; 2. 20% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes at or below 50% AMI; or 3. 40% of units shall be affordable to those with incomes averaging no more than 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI. For sale owner occupied units: An affordable homeownership unit shall provide a minimum of 50% of units affordable to those with incomes at or below 80% AMI. 19 Type C. Applicable to zoning districts not otherwise specified. Affordable rental or homeownership units shall meet a minimum of at least one of the affordability criteria identified. Any fractional number of units required shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 1. 20% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI; 2. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI; 3. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an average income at or below 60% AMI and these units shall not be occupied by those with an income greater than 80% AMI; 4. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 30% AMI; 5. 10% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; 6. 5% of units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 60% AMI when the affordable units have two or more bedrooms; or 7. 5% of the units are restricted as affordable to those with an income at or below 80% AMI when the affordable units have three or more bedrooms. 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 1. Single- and Two-Family Zoning Districts: The following housing types: twin home and two-family, three-family dwellings, four-family dwellings, row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in for Type A in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 401 402 403 404 405 406 2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for the RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the RMF-30 zoning district, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are met. 407 408 409 410 411 3. Incentives in the CB Community Business, CC Corridor Commercial, CG General Commercial, and I Institutional Zoning Districts: a.The following housing types: row houses, sideways row houses, and cottage developments are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements in subsection b. are complied with; 20 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 b.To be eligible for the incentives listed in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G. 4. The following incentives are authorized in zoning districts provided the affordability requirements for Type C in Table 21A.52.050.G are complied with: a.Administrative design review provided the noticing requirements of 21A.10.020.B and the standards in 21A.59 are met. Early engagement notice requirements to recognized organizations are not applicable. Additional building height as indicated in the following sections:b. (1) Residential districts: Permitted Maximum Height with IncentiveZoning District RMU-35 RMU-45 RB 45’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. 55’ with administrative Design Review, regardless of abutting use or zone. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. Density limitations listed in the land use table do not apply. RMU RO May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. 423 424 425 (2)Commercial Districts: Zoning District SNB Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. CB CN CC CG May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building. 45’ with administrative Design Review; additional landscaping may be met by meeting requirements in 21A.52.050.H.3.c.5. May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review for properties in the mapped area in Figure 21A.26.070.G. CSHBD1 CSHBD2 105’ and two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 60’ with administrative Design Review and one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 21 TSA- Transition TSA-Core May build one additional story equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. May build two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative review. 426 427 428 429 430 (3)Form-based districts: [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is not adopted, then this table is void.] Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN3 125’ and three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN2 FB-SC FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. 431 432 433 434 435 [Note to codifier: use this table if FBUN3 is not adopted as of the date of this ordinance pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00277. If it is adopted this table is void and the prior table should be codified.] Zoning District Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive FB-UN2 May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-SC FB-SE May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. May build one additional story equal to the average height of the other stories in the building. FB-UN1 May build up to three stories and 30’ in height. 436 437 438 439 (4)Downtown districts: Zoning District D-1 Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive Administrative Design Review is permitted when a Design Review process is required. D-2 D-3 Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. 22 D-4 Three additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the stories permitted with administrative Design Review. 375’ and administrative Design Review in mapped area in 21A.30.045.E.2.b. 440 441 442 (5)Other districts: Zoning District GMU Permitted Maximum Height with Incentive Two additional stories equal to or less than the average height of the other stories in the building with administrative Design Review. MU 60’ with residential units and administrative Design Review. 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 c.Administrative Design Review is permitted for the following: (6)Buildings in the CSHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning district that exceed 20,000 square feet in size. (7)Buildings in the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500 gross square feet of floor area for a first-floor footprint or in excess of 15,000 gross square feet floor area. 5. Planned Developments: A Planned Development is not required when the purpose of the planned development is due to the following reasons cited below, subject to approval by other city departments. If a development proposes any modification that is not listed below, planned development approval is required. To be eligible for the incentives in this section, a development shall meet the affordability requirements for the applicable zoning district in Table 21A.52.040. a.Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be located on a single parcel and are allowed without having public street frontage. This allowance supersedes the restrictions of 21A.36.010.B; Principal buildings with frontage on a paved public alley; Principal buildings with frontage on a private street; Development located in the Community Shopping (CS) “Planned Development Review” in 21A.26.040.C. b. c. d. H.Development Regulations: The following development regulations are intended to provide supplemental regulations and modify standards of the base zoning district for the purpose of making the affordable housing incentives more feasible and compatible with existing development. Base zoning standards apply unless specifically modified by this section and are in addition to modifications authorized in subsection 21A.52.050.G. If there are conflicts with design standards, the more restrictive regulation shall apply and take precedence. These standards are not allowed to be modified through the planned development process. 1. Modifications in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, SR-1A, and SR-3 zoning districts: a.Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. One detached garage 23 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 or covered parking space, no greater than 250 sq. ft. per unit, may be provided for each unit and these structure(s) may exceed the yard and building coverage requirements for accessory structures. When covered parking is provided, the 250 sq. ft. per unit of covered parking may be combined into a single structure for each required parking stall provided. Yards: Minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. b. c.Density: (1)Lots approved through a planned development prior to the effective date of this chapter are required to go through a major modification of the planned development to use the incentives. Lots may contain up to four units. Existing lots may be divided such that each unit is on its own lot. The new lots are exempt from minimum lot area, lot width, and lot frontage requirements. (2) (3) (4) An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is considered one unit and counts toward the number of units permitted. Arrangement of dwellings: (A)New dwelling units may be arranged in any manner within a building, as a second detached dwelling, as attached units, or a cottage development with three or more detached dwellings, within the buildings that are part of the cottage development. (B)When an existing building is maintained, new units may be added internal to the existing structure, as an addition, or as a second detached dwelling. Any addition must comply with the standards of the base zoning district; however, the addition may contain additional units. 50% of the exterior walls of the existing dwelling, including the front elevation, shall remain as exterior walls. (C)The units shall comply with this section, applicable requirements of the base zoning district, and any applicable overlay district. 2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts the following provisions shall apply: a.Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 10 units. b. 24 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 c.Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not to the individual principal buildings within the development. d.Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. 3. In addition to applicable requirements in 1. and 2. above, the following provisions apply to the specific building types listed: a.Row house and Sideways row house (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the building and 6 feet on the other interior side yard unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Number of Units: To qualify for incentives in the FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R-1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R-2, SR-1, and SR- 1A zoning districts there is a minimum of three and a maximum of four residential dwelling units per building. (3) Building length facing street: (A) The building length shall not exceed 60 feet or the average of the block face, whichever is less, in FR-1, FR-2, FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000, R-1/5,000, R- 2, SR-1, and SR-1A districts; (B) The building length shall not exceed 100 feet in the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts; and (C) The building length shall not exceed 175 feet in other zoning districts. (4) Building entry facing street: At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is required for each unit facing the primary street facing façade. All units adjacent to a public street shall have the primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. The entry feature may encroach in the front yard setback, but the encroachment shall not be closer than 5 feet from the front property line. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 25 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) Parking requirement and location: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, only one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of the street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. (7) Garage doors facing street: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that is parallel to, or located along, a public street. (8) Personal outdoor space: Each unit shall have a minimum outdoor space of 60 square feet where the minimum measurement of any side cannot be less than 6 feet. (9) Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. (10) Blank wall: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing façade is 15’. (11) Screening of mechanical equipment: All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view and sited to minimize their visibility and impact. Examples of siting include on the roof, enclosed or otherwise integrated into the architectural design of the building, or in a rear or side yard area subject to yard location restrictions found in section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, “Obstructions In Required Yards” of this title. Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.a.1 Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House 598 599 Illustration for 21A.52.050.E.3.b.1 Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House 26 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 b.Cottage Development (1) Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: A minimum of 10 feet on one side of the property line and 6 feet on the other interior side yard, unless a greater yard is required by the base zoning district. (C) Rear yard: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. (2) Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet from another cottage. (3) Area: No cottage shall have more than 850 square feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area. There is no minimum square foot requirement. (4) Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space. (5) Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the 27 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. (6) (7) Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of common, open space is required per cottage. At least 50% of the open space shall be in a courtyard or other common, usable open space. The development shall include landscaping, walkways or other amenities intended to serve the residents of the development. Personal Outdoor Space: In addition to the open space requirement in this section, a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space is required per cottage. The open space shall provide a private yard area for each cottage and will be separated with a fence, hedge, or other visual separation to distinguish the private space. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in 21A.44, one off-street parking space per unit is required. All provided parking shall be located to the side of a street facing building façade, behind a principal structure that has frontage on a street, or within the principal structure subject to any other applicable provision. (8) c. In addition to applicable requirements in 21A.52.050.H above, the following provisions apply to all other buildings containing more than two residential units. If the base zone has a greater design standard requirement, that standard applies. (1)Perimeter yard requirements: (A) Front yards: The front yard and corner side yard setback of the base zoning district apply. (B) Side yards: For housing types not otherwise allowed in the zoning district, a minimum of 10 feet on each side property line, unless a greater setback is required for single-family homes. (C) Rear yards: The rear yard of the base zoning district applies. Building entrances: The ground floor shall have a primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an unenclosed entry porch, canopy, or awning feature. Stairs to second floor units are not permitted on street facing elevations. Glass: The surface area of the façade of each floor facing a street must contain a minimum of 15% glass. Building materials: 50% of any street facing facade shall be clad in durable materials. Durable materials include stone, brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete, and fiber cement board. Other materials may be used for the remainder of the facade adjacent to a street. Other materials proposed to satisfy the durable requirement may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is found that the (2) (3) (4) 28 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 proposed material is durable and is appropriate for the structure. Open space: Open space area may include landscaped yards, patios, dining areas, and other similar outdoor living spaces. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. (A) Single- and two-family zoning districts: 120 sq. ft. of open space with a minimum width of 6 ft. shall be provided for each building with a dwelling. (B) All other zoning districts: A minimum of 10% of the land area within the development shall be open space, up to 5,000 square feet. Open space may include courtyards, rooftop and terrace gardens and other similar types of open space amenities. All required open space areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the building. (5) d. Single- and Two-family Dwellings: No additional design standards except as identified in 21A.24. e. Unit Limits: For overall development sites with more than 125 units, no more than 50% of units shall be designated as affordable units. f. Lots without public street frontage may be created to accommodate developments without planned development approval subject to the following standards: (1)Required yards shall be applied to the overall development site not individual lots within the development. The front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped yards; Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development not individual lots within the development; and Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the development are permitted on any lot within the development. The subdivision shall be finalized with a final plat and the final plat shall document that the new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a shared driveway or private street; and (2) (3) (4) (5)An entity, such as a homeowner association, must be established for the operation and maintenance of any common infrastructure. Documentation establishing that entity must be recorded with the final plat. SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1. That Subsection 21A.55.010.C.1 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Planned Developments: Purpose Statements) shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 711 712 29 713 714 715 716 717 1.At least twenty percent (20%) of the housing must be for those with incomes that are at or below eighty percent (80%) of the area median income. Affordable housing that meets the requirements of 21A.52.050. SECTION 18. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.60.020. That Section 718 21A.60.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: List of Terms: List of Defined Terms) shall be and 719 720 hereby is amended to add the following terms in the list of defined terms to be inserted into that list in alphabetical order: 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 Affordable Housing Affordable Housing Incentives Development Dwelling, Three-family Dwelling, Four-family Dwelling, Row House Dwelling, Sideways Row House Dwelling, Cottage Development 729 730 731 732 733 734 SECTION 19. 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 as follows: a. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Affordable housing shall be both income and, as applicable, rent-restricted. The affordable units shall be made available only to individuals and households that are qualifying occupants at or below the applicable percentage of the area median income for the Salt Lake City Utah, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Metro FMR Area the “SLC Area Median Income” or “AMI”, as periodically determined by HUD and adjusted for household size) and published by the Utah Housing Corporation, or its successor. Affordable (30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities) housing units must accommodate at least one of the following categories: a. Extremely Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to 30% AMI; b. Very Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating up to greater than 30% and up to 50% AMI; or 30 747 748 749 750 c. Low-Income Affordable Units: Housing units accommodating greater than 50% and up to 80% AMI. b. Adding the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT: A housing development that meets the criteria in 21A.52.050. c. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY.” That the definition of “DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 758 759 760 DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A detached building containing three dwelling units. 761 762 763 764 d. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY.” That the definition of “DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: DWELLING, FOUR-FAMILY: A detached building containing four dwelling units. 765 766 767 e. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of “DWELLING, ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 768 769 770 771 DWELLING, ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a public street. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. 772 773 774 f. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE.” That the definition of “DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 31 775 776 777 778 DWELLING, SIDEWAYS ROW HOUSE: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where the entry of each unit faces a side yard as opposed to the front yard. Units may be stacked vertically and/or attached horizontally. Each attached unit may be on its own lot. 779 780 781 g. Adding the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT.” That the definition of “DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT” be added and inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and read as follows: 782 783 784 785 DWELLING, COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT: A cottage development is a unified development that contains a minimum of two and a maximum of eight detached dwelling units with each unit appearing to be a small single-family dwelling with a common green or open space. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot. 786 787 SECTION 20. That the “ZONING FEES” section of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to add the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. 788 789 790 791 792 SECTION 21. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2023. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER 801 802 803 804 32 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office (SEAL) Date:___________________________ Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________.By: ____________________________ Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney822823Ordinance creating zoning incentives and affordable housing incentives 33 824 EXHIBIT A 825 826 Service Fee Additional Information Section Affordable Housing Incentives Fines Noncompliance violation $100/affordable Plus rental difference unit/day 21A.20.040.B 827 34 2. CHRONOLOGY ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2019-00658 July 15, 2019 Petition initiated by Mayor Jackie Biskupski Petition assigned to Sara JavoronokJuly 15, 2019 December 3, 2019 First survey posted. Notice emailed to listserv and posted on social media accounts. June 25, 2020 June 26, 2020 Notice mailed to all Community Councils. StoryMap with framework for proposal and survey posted. Notice emailed to listservs and posted on city social media accounts. July 9, 2020 Planning staff held an AMA/Q&A discussion on Facebook Live. July 20, 2020 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use and Zoning meeting. August 6, 2020 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting. January 28, 2022 February 16, 2022 March 3, 2022 Project website updated and Project Update notice emailed to listservs. Planning staff held a second AMA/Q&A on Facebook Live. Second notice mailed to all Community Councils. Planning staff met with seven Community Councils in March and April 2022. March 16, 2022 March 21, 2022 April 2022 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the East Bench Community Council meeting. Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Sugar House Land Use Committee meeting. Flyer mailed to 99,832 commercial and residential addresses in Salt Lake City and owners outside of the city. April 5, 2022 April 5, 2022 Open House held at Sugar House Fire Station #3. Planning staff hosted Virtual Office Hours on an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. April 7, 2022 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Ball Park Community Council meeting. April 12, 2022 April 13, 2022 Open House held at the Unity Center Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Jordan Meadows/Westpointe Community Council meeting. April 14, 2022 April 14, 2022 Planning staff hosted Virtual Office Hours on an open Zoom meeting to answer questions. Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Yalecrest Community Council meeting. April 19, 2022 April 21, 2022 April 29, 2022 Open House held at Riverside Park Open House held at Lindsey Gardens Park Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and notice emailed to listserv. May 4, 2022 Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Greater Avenues Community Council meeting May 6, 2022 Staff report posted to Planning’s website May 11, 2022 October 25, 2022 March 16, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing. The item was tabled. First of four Focus Group Meetings Planning staff discussed the proposal at the Salt Lake City Community Network meeting. March 22, 2023 March 29, 2023 April 6, 2023 Planning Commission Briefing Planning Commission Work Session Historic Landmark Commission Work Session April 14, 2023 Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and notice emailed to the listserv. April 21, 2023 April 26, 2023 Staff report posted to Planning’s website Planning Commission forwards a positive recommendation to the City Council 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2019-00658 – A petition initiated by former Mayor Jackie Biskupski to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Code to add a new chapter with Affordable Housing Incentives. The proposed amendments are to incentivize and reduce barriers for affordable housing. The incentives include administrative Design Review and additional building height in various zoning districts, Planned Development requirement modifications, removal of the density requirements in the RMF zoning districts, and additional dwelling types in various zoning districts. The proposed amendments involve multiple chapters of the Zoning Ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. The City Council may consider modifications to other related sections of the code as part of this proposal. 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 Sara Javoronok at 801-535-7625 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail sara.javoronok@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2019-00658 or on the project page at https://www.slc.gov/planning/2023/03/08/affordable-housing/. 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 REQUEST 5. ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Kristeen Beitel, Public Utilities When weighing increased densification as an incentive for affordable housing, it is important for applicants to consider the potential increase in construction costs resulting from required offsite utility improvements. Densification may place greater demands on water, sewer, and storm drain systems, which could exceed the capacity of the existing infrastructure. Property owners and developers may be required to upgrade the offsite public utilities to ensure sufficient capacity for the new developments. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT POSTED From:Clark, Aubrey To:Turner Bitton; Planning Public Comments Subject: Date: RE: (EXTERNAL) Supportive Comments for Affordable Housing Incentives Public Hearing Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:58:07 PM Attachments:image001.png Turner, Thank you for submitting your comments. I have forwarded it to the Planning Commission, and it will be shared during the public hearing. Thanks, Aubrey Clark | (She/Her/Hers) Administrative Assistant PLANNING DIVISION | SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Direct: (801) 535-7759 or Mobile: (385) 415-4701 Email: Aubrey.Clark@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: Turner Bitton Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 5:52 PM To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Supportive Comments for Affordable Housing Incentives Public Hearing Caution: This is an external email. Please be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Hello, I had planned to attend tonight’s planning commission digitally but learned that there is no longer a digital attendance option and I’m at Disneyland so I can’t make it. I wanted to make sure that our support for the Affordable Housing Incentives was formally submitted. In addition to our formal support, I would like to submit this statement for the record: “SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors supports the Affordable Housing Incentives, however based on estimates in the current proposal, we are concerned that projects in single-family neighborhoods will not be financially viability. If the city is serious about promoting the construction of more housing in high- opportunity single-family neighborhoods, some of the current conditions that make those projects financially unfeasible should be removed. The Scenarios in Attachment G show that there is virtually no economic incentive for market rate developers to pursue the AHI’s. However, it has the potential to add more affordable units on SELECT projects that are already pursuing LIHTC’s Especially in multi-family districts, density bonuses need to take into account building code requirements, for example that the maximum number of stories that can be built with a wood-frame structure is five. If the density bonus provided forces builders to use a steel-frame construction technique, the economic benefits of an extra floor of apartments does not overcome the extra cost of using expensive construction materials. In addition, to make the incentives more functional, the incentives should be changed to: 1) Allow lots to be split and to allow for the sale of separate units. 2) Eliminate ALL parking requirements for projects that meet the threshold for the incentives. This would make many projects more affordable, especially in higher density zones. 3) In multi-family districts near rail transit, the incentives in terms of FAR (floor area ratio) and height limits should be much stronger to (a) make more projects financially viable and (b) locate more residents and businesses near rail. Overall, the incentives should be increased to find a broader mix of incentives that produce positive results for market rate developers considering adding affordable units to projects.” Thanks, Turner C. Bitton (he/him) Executive Director SLC Neighbors for More Neighbors www.slcneighbors.org 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 14, 2023 RE: 711 and 721 South 1200 East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2023-00496/00639 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 711 and 721 South 1200 East from their current R-2 (Single- and Two-Family Residential) zoning to I (Institutional). In addition, the proposal calls for amending the Central Community Master Plan future land use designations from Low-Density Residential to Institutional. Private K-12 schools are not a permitted use in the existing R-2 zoning district but are in the proposed Institutional zone. The proposed amendments would allow expansion of the McGillis School campus for classes, meetings, assemblies, and administration. While the properties are zoned R-2, the building on the property has been the historic Douglas Ward Building (an Institutional use). The McGillis School is under an agreement to purchase the currently unused church building from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In their application, the petitioner stated an intent to repurpose the building built in 1950 for the school rather than demolish it and construct another building. There is some urgency to the request as the agreement stipulates that the entitlement period ends December 9, 2023. The School is requesting Council action on the rezone and master plan amendment prior to that date. Combined, the two parcels are approximately 0.57 acres and the historic building’s footprint is roughly 8,800 square feet. The parcels are in a residential area primarily zoned R-2 shown in the zoning map below, with single-family homes, duplexes, and an apartment building nearby. The McGillis School’s other building is at the corner of 1300 East and 700 South, approximately 0.2 miles away as shown in the image below. It is anticipated that student drop off and pick-up will happen at the 1300 East building, and those participating in classes or other activities at the 1200 East building will walk between the two. This will reduce traffic impact to the surrounding neighborhood. There are sidewalks and a marked crosswalk Item Schedule: Briefing: November 14, 2023 Set Date: November 14, 2023 Public Hearing: December 5, 2023 Potential Action: December 5, 2023 Page | 2 between the two buildings. The McGillis School committed to necessary safety measures for students traveling between the buildings. Area zoning map with the subject parcels shown in red. Note-the McGillis School’s property is shaded in blue in the upper right corner of the image. Image (looking east) showing church building outlined in yellow, and McGillis School outlined in blue. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal during its October 25, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing at which seven people, including a representative of the East Central Community Council, spoke. Six of the commenters were supportive of the proposal, and one was opposed. The person who spoke Page | 3 against the proposal cited concerns with additional foot and vehicle traffic. The Commission voted 8-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the zoning map and future land use map amendments with an additional recommendation that the Council discuss a potential development agreement or restrictive covenant limiting use of the property to a school or similar institutional function. 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 to include a condition recommended by the Planning Commission that the petitioner enter into a development agreement or restrictive covenant with the City limiting use of the property to a school or similar institutional function if the Council adopts the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amending the future land use map. 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 5-10 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1 – Compliance with the Standards for General Amendments Planning staff found the proposed zoning map amendment complies with standards outlined below and found in attachment D (pages 54-57) of the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration 2 – Compliance with City Goals, Policies, and General Plans It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposals align with goals and principles found in Plan Salt Lake and the Central Community Master Plan including: •Maintain neighborhood stability and character. •Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character. •Retain areas and structures of historic and architectural value. •Prohibit the location or expansion of institutional facilities that displace or remove residential uses. •Improve and strengthen relationships between institutions and residential neighborhoods. Consideration 3 – Impact on Adjacent Property Owners In their review of the proposals, Planning staff considered impact on adjacent property owners in three areas: height and setbacks, parking and traffic, and land use. Height and Setbacks As shown in the table below, building height in the I zone is a maximum of 35 feet, with additional height up to 75 feet through design review. For each foot above 35 feet all required yards must be increased by one foot. This is intended to move the height toward the center of the property, and away from adjacent properties. Planning staff found that the I zone’s height requirements and design review process will help mitigate height impacts to adjacent properties if a future change of use is requested. It is worth noting that the church building’s steeple has been removed. Page | 4 Parking and Traffic When an expansion of a zoning district is proposed, the City requires a traffic and parking study along with the application. The McGillis School believes that using the church building as a school will not significantly impact traffic or parking. The City Zoning Administrator reviewed the application, and following department comments that did not include parking and traffic concerns, waived the requirement for a study. A building permit would be required before using the church building as a school. McGillis would also apply for a shared or offsite parking agreement with the existing school. This can be done because the two buildings are so close to each other. As discussed above, under the proposal student drop-off and pick-up will continue at the existing school, and students will walk from one building to the other. Only a few administrative parking spaces are anticipated to be needed at the subject property which can be accommodated with existing spaces. Land Use Planning staff believes that use of the existing church as part of The McGillis School will allow for compatible use while preserving the building. It is their opinion that such a use will strengthen the school’s connections with the neighborhood. ZONING COMPARISON Attachment E (pages 58-61) of the Planning Commission staff report includes a comparison of existing R-2 and proposed I zoning. It is replicated here for convenience. Regulation Existing Zoning (R-2)Proposed Zoning (I) Lot Area/Width Places of worship: 12,000 square feet /80 feet) Other uses: 20,000 square feet/100 feet 20,000 square feet /100 feet Building Height The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs is 28 feet, or the average height of other principal buildings on the block face, while the maximum height of a flat-roofed building is 20 feet. 35 feet, with approval for heights over 35 feet but not exceeding 75 feet through design review. Provided, that for each foot of height over thirty-five feet (35'), each required yard shall be increased one foot (1'). Front Yard/Setback For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the building. Twenty feet (20') Side Yard/Setback Four feet (4'); provided, that on interior lots one yard must be at least ten feet (10') Twenty feet (20') Rear Yard/Setback Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than fifteen feet (15') and need not exceed twenty- five feet (25'). Twenty-five feet (25') Parking The parking regulations for places of worship are 1 space per 6 seats or 1 space per 300 sq. ft., whichever is less. The square footage of the church building is 8781 therefore Minimum Parking Requirement for K–12 private schools, elementary or middle, is 1 space per 20 students. The enrollment at McGillis School is approximately 430 students; Page | 5 approximately 29 spots would be required. There are 9 spots onsite. 9/29 as a percentage is 31%. For the use as a private school the parking requirement would be about 22 stalls. therefore, the parking requirement would be 22 stalls. Other uses in the I Zone may have more stringent parking requirements. Lot Coverage For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal conforming. N/A Open Space See Lot Coverage The minimum open space area for any use shall not be less than forty percent (40%) of the lot area Maximum exterior wall height Exterior walls must be 20 feet adjacent to interior side yards, with height increasing by 1 foot for each foot of increased setback beyond the minimum required side yard. If approved with a reduced setback, wall height decreases by 1 foot. No limit. Landscape The landscaping required by this chapter shall be provided as a condition of building permit issuance for any addition, expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area and/or parking requirement by fifty percent (50%) or more. The zoning administrator may waive the landscaping requirement if an existing building is located in an area of the lot that is required to be landscaped and compliance with the landscaping requirements of this chapter necessitates removing all or a portion of an existing building. The landscaping required by this chapter shall be provided as a condition of building permit issuance for any addition, expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area and/or parking requirement by fifty percent (50%) or more. The zoning administrator may waive the landscaping requirement if an existing building is located in an area of the lot that is required to be landscaped and compliance with the landscaping requirements of this chapter necessitates removing all or a portion of an existing building. Analysis of Factors Attachment E (pages 54-57) 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 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. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but Complies Page | 6 not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. 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 proposals are approved, and the property use is changed from a church to a private school. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • June 23, 2023 – Petition for the zoning map amendment received by Planning Division. • July 18, 2023 – Petition assigned to Megan Booth, Principal Planner. Planning staff recommended the petitioner apply for a general plan amendment in addition to the zoning map amendment. • August 8, 2023 – Master plan amendment received by Planning Division. • August 10, 2023 – Notice sent to the East Central Community Council. • August 15, 2023 – o Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. o Proposal posted for an online open house. • September 29, 2023 – 45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. • October 13, 2023 – 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. • October 14, 2023 – Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. • October 25, 2023 – Petitions reviewed by the Planning Commission and a public hearing was held. The Commission voted 8-0 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the zoning map and future land use map amendments with an additional recommendation that the Council discuss a potential development agreement or restrictive covenant limiting use of the property to a school or similar institutional function. • October 26, 2023 – Draft ordinance sent to the City Attorney’s Office and the signed ordinance was received the same day. • October 30, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office. Jim Brewer Head of School values McGillis... committed to 395 STUDENTS 34th SCHOOL YEAR 21 YEARS IN THE DOUGLAS NEIGHBORHOOD McGillis... adapting and expanding The McGillis School Douglas Ward McGillis... adapting and expanding 1915 2023 preservation McGillis has a history of 2020 2021 2022 2023 FEBRUARY Douglas Neighborhood contacts McGillis regarding potential sale of the Ward building. SEPTEMBER McGillis tours Douglas Ward building with neighbor and ward member. NOVEMBER McGillis officially expresses interest in purchasing the ward property. JANUARY McGillis submits 1st offer to purchase Douglas Ward. FEBRUARY Seller chooses competing offer. MARCH McGillis submits 2nd offer to purchase Douglas Ward. APRIL Seller chooses competing offer. FEBRUARY Seller contacts McGillis with approval to sell the Douglas Ward to McGillis. MARCH McGillis submits 3rd and final offer. JUNE McGillis signs and submits PSA to seller. DECEMBER Entitlement period ends, closing deadline 12/9. OCTOBER Planning Commission meeting to review and vote on zoning. timeline Acquisition Activating space Expanding culture community McGillis... committed to Thank you! DOUGLAS WARD GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS PLNPCM2023-00639 PLNPCM2023-00496 •McGillis School (668 South 1300 East) is purchasing the Douglas Ward property at 711 and 721 S 1200 East for an expansion of the school •Plan is to reuse the existing church building •A rezone is required to allow a school on the property Salt Lake City // Planning Division PROJECT REQUEST Salt Lake City // Planning Division 700 South 1 3 0 0 E a s t McGillis School Current zoning district: R-2 Single- and Two- Family Residential District (Yellow) Proposed zoning district: I Institutional (Light Blue) Salt Lake City // Planning Division EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING Salt Lake City // Planning Division MASTER PLAN The Central Community Master Plan designates the properties as low-density residential. (Yellow) The applicant requests the Central Community Future Land Use Map Designation be amended to Institutional. (Blue) Salt Lake City // Planning Division INSTITUTIONAL VS. R2 ZONES Land Uses •R2 – Predominately residential (single-family and duplexes) •Institutional – Schools, Medical Facilities, Offices, Assisted Living Residential Building Height •R2 – 28 feet •Institutional – 35 feet or up to 75 feet with Design Review approval Bottom Line •R2 zone is a typical low density residential district •Institutional zone allows a higher intensity of development (Uses that cater to more people that are located in bigger, taller buildings) Salt Lake City // Planning Division PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION Discussion Points •Impacts of uses allowed in the Institutional zone on adjacent properties •Reuse of existing building Recommendation •Recommended approval of amendments •Recommended that the Council discuss restricting use of the property to a school or similar institutional use ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 10/30/2023 10/30/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 30, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods _ SUBJECT: PLNPCM2023-00639, Douglas Ward General Plan Amendment PLNPCM2023-00496, Douglas Ward Zoning Map Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Meagan Booth, Principal Planner, meagan.booth@slcgov.com, 801-535-721 or Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, wayne.mills@slcgov.com, 801-535-7282 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follows the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the requested Zoning Map and General Plan amendments. BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jim Brewer, representing the McGillis School, is requesting a General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment for the properties located at 711 S 1200 East and 721 S 1200 East. The subject properties are the location of the Douglas Ward House, a now vacant building formerly used as a church. McGillis School intends to purchase the properties and use the existing building as a school. The properties are currently zoned R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. Schools are not an allowed use in this zone, so the applicant is proposing to rezone the properties to I Institutional where schools are a permitted use. The applicant is also proposing to change the future land use designation in the Central Community Master Plan from Low-Density Residential to Institutional to ensure consistency between the City’s general plan and zoning. 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 (Oct 30, 2023 16:20 MDT) For specific information regarding the proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning Commission discussed the petition at their October 25, 2023 meeting and held a public hearing. The Planning Commission voted (7:0) to recommend approval of the Zoning Map and General Plan amendment to the City Council. As part of their motion, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council discuss a possible development agreement or restrictive covenant limiting the long-term use of the property to a school or similar institutional function. The discussion focused on the possibility that the property could be sold in the future, and then any use allowed in the Institutional zone would be allowed at this location. They stated in the discussion that some of the uses permitted uses in the I zone could have negative impacts on the neighborhood. The Planning Commission did not vote on a specific condition. They just recommended that the City Council raise the issue as a discussion point. The entire public meeting can be viewed using this link at the 1:49:00 mark. PUBLIC PROCESS: • The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to the East Central Community Council who held a public meeting and input opportunities related to the proposed project. • 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 August 15 2023. • An online open house has been posted to the Planning Division’s webpage August 15, 2023 through September 29, 2023. • Public noticing of the Planning Commission hearing was completed on October 13, 2023. • Public comments were received before the Planning Commission hearing and included in the Staff Report. The public comments during the meeting were both in support and against the rezoning amendment. The theme of the comments was what happens if the McGillis School vacates the property in the future and impacts the neighborhood. Some parents of students at the McGillis School fully support the expansion of the McGillis School into the Douglas Ward Building. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of October 25, 2023 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of October 25, 2023 (The transmittal was completed prior to adoption of the minutes. The minutes are scheduled to be adopted on November 8, 2023 and will be available here - https://www.slc.gov/planning/public-meetings/planning-commission- agendas-minutes/) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of October 25, 2023 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS 1. Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Petition Application 4. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to two parcels located at 711 and 721 South 1200 East Street to rezone those parcels from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to I Institutional District, and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels located at 711 and 721 South 1200 East Street to rezone those parcels from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to I Institutional District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00496 and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to those properties to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Institutional pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00639. WHEREAS the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on October 25, 2023 on petitions submitted by Jim Brewer (“Applicant”) on behalf of the property owner to rezone parcels located at 711 and 721 South 1200 East Street (the “Properties”) to rezone those parcels from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to I Institutional District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00496 and to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the Properties to change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Institutional pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2023-00639; and WHEREAS, at its October 25, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said petitions; 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 described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby are rezoned from R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District to I Institutional 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 Properties identified in Exhibit “A” attached hereto from Low Density Residential to Institutional. SECTION 3. 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 zoning and MP 711 and 721 S 1200 E APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _October 27, 2023 By: Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney Exhibit “A” Legal Descriptions of Properties to be rezoned to I Institutional District. Parcel 1 (Tax ID No. 16-08-230-010-0000): Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, in Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the SALT LAKE County Recorder's Office. TOGETHER WITH one-half of the vacated alley abutting the property on the East. Parcel 2 (Tax ID No. 16-08-230-035-0000): Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 23, Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision and running thence North 89°57’27” East 34.257 feet; thence South 00°00’28” West 25.177 feet; thence North 89°42’34 East 36.257 feet; then South 00°00’28” West 25.00 feet; thence South 89°57’27” West 70.514 feet; thence North 00°00’28” East 50.015 feet to the point of beginning. 1) CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2023-00496 & PLNPCM2023-00639 June 23, 2023 Application for a Zoning Map Amendment was received. July 18, 2023 Petition PLNPCM2023-00496 was assigned to Meagan Booth, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. Staff discussed the petition with the applicant and recommended they apply for a General Plan Amendment in addition to the zoning map amendment. Staff waited for this application in order to route the two applications concurrently. August 8, 2023 Master Plan Amendment Application PLNPCM2023-00639 was received. August 10, 2023 Notice was sent to Recognized Community Organization (RCOs) informing them of the petitions. The RCO was the East Central Community Council. August 15, 2023 Early notification of the project was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. August 15, 2023 The proposal was posted for an online open house. The proposal can still be viewed online. September 29, 2023 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. October 13, 2023 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. October 14, 2023 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. October 20, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted. October 25, 2023 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed map amendment. October 26, 2023 Draft Ordinance sent to the Attorney’s Office and the final ordinance was received the same day 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering petitions PLNPCM2023-00496 & PLNPCM2023-00639, a request by Jim Brewer, Head of the McGillis School, to change the general plan and rezone the properties at 711 and 721 South 1200 East. The purpose of the amendments is to use the existing church building as a school. 1. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2023-00496): The subject properties are currently zoned R- 2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. Schools are not an allowed use in this zone; therefore, the applicant is proposing to change the zoning of the properties to I Institutional. 2. General Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2023-00639): The applicant is requesting to amend the future land use designation of the properties in the Central Community Master Plan from Low- Density Residential to Institutional to ensure consistency between the City’s general plan and zoning. 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: TBD TIME: 7:00 PM 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 contact Meagan Booth at 801-535-7213 or meaagan.booth@slcgov.com, or Wayne Mills at 801-535-7282 or wayne.mills@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the "Planning" tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2023-00496 & PLNPCM2023-00639. 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) PETITION APPLICATION DocuSign Envelope ID: C26CC5AA-27E0-4337-B7E2-ED6DBD6F6552 DocuSign Envelope ID: C26CC5AA-27E0-4337-B7E2-ED6DBD6F6552 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. Legal Description of Subject Property: N me of Owner: Mailing Address Street Address: JDR JDR Date: Jun 21, 2023 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. 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 s the subject of this application. Updated 9/14/22 FEE TITLE OWNER SIGNATURE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: C26CC5AA-27E0-4337-B7E2-ED6DBD6F6552 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. Attachment to Zoning Amendment Salt Lake City Rezoning of the Douglas Ward located at 721 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE “DOUGLAS WARD” That certain real property located in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, described and generally depicted as follows: Parcel 1: Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, in Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the SALT LAKE County Recorder's Office. TOGETHER WITH one-half of the vacated alley abutting the property on the East. Parcel 2: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 23, Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision and running thence North 89°57’27”East 34.257 feet; thence South 00°00’28”West 25.177 feet; thence North 89°42’34 East 36.257 feet; then South 00°00’28”West 25.00 feet; thence South 89°57’27” West 70.514 feet; thence North 00°00’28” East 50.015 feet to the point of beginning. Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000. The legal description of the Property shall be determined by the Title Report. PURPOSE STATEMENT The purpose of this amendment to the Zoning Map is to permit a school on the Douglas Ward property. Thus, we request the zoning be changed from R2 to Institutional (I). This zoning is consistent with The McGillis School located at 668 South 1300 East and other private schools in Salt Lake City. This new use has support from neighbors and Council Member Ana Valdemoros has offered to help The McGillis School with this Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment, see attached letter. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED The McGillis School currently operates a school located at 668 South 1300 East in Salt Lake City, Utah. The McGillis School desires to acquire the Douglas Ward and use said property as an extension of their existing school. As desired by The McGillis School, the Douglas Ward property will be used for classes, meetings, assemblies, and administration. LIST THE REASONS WHY THE PRESENT ZONING MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA The Douglas Ward is currently zoned R-2. The McGillis School intends to use the property as an extension of their existing school. Although schools like The McGillis School are frequently located in residential areas, Salt Lake City Land Use Tables for permitted and conditional uses for residential districts show that the proposed use is not a permitted use or a conditional use. Thus, it is necessary to amend the Zoning Map and Master Plan so The McGillis School may use the building as a school. LIST THE PARCEL NUMBERS TO BE CHANGED AS PART OF THE REZONING Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000. 1632662.1CHL DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB2B4F-E47F-46CF-848B-5983DBA4435F PLANNING PROCESS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ABOUT THE APPLICATION Thank you for your interest in submitting a General Plan Amendment application. The following packet will provide general information to get started on your project and guide you through the application process from start to finish. The package is broken down into three sections: Information about the application, a visual diagram of the application process, and the application form. We highly encourage you to work with our Planning staff prior to submitting an application. For questions regarding any of the information listed in this packet or to set up a pre-submittal meeting please contact us at zoning@slcgov.com or give us a call at 801.535.7757. G) ....... 0 � ...... , ....a ...> '--···□ 0 f--fi 0 Important Process Information PLANNING DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET ROOM 406 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY. UT 84114-5480 Process Timeline Application Form SLC.GOVIPLA /J:'J!NG ZONING@SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7757 .......................................................................................... GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS PLANNING DIVISION// v7.1.23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB2B4F-E47F-46CF-848B-5983DBA4435F IMPORTANT PROCESS INFORMATION ORDINANCE Utah Code 10-9a-4 PURPOSE & INTENT OF THE PROCESS The general plan of the city includes any citywide plan, community plan, small area plan, corridor plan, or other plan that fits the requirements and definitions of a general plan under Utah Code 10-9a. Utah State Law requires every municipality to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-range general plan for: a. present and future needs of the municipality; and b. growth and development of all or any part of the land within the municipality. B-- EFFECT OF ADOPTED MASTER PLANS OR GENERAL PLANS (21A.02.040) All master plans or general plans adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council for the City, or for an area of the City, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the zoning text or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. CONSULTATION If you have questions regarding the General Plan Amendment regulations or process, please contact the Salt Lake City Planning Counter staff at zoning'.§lslcgov.com or give us a call at 801-535-7757. If you would like to discuss your development plan in more detail, you can request a pre-submittal meeting with Planning staff by contacting the Planning Counter. Pre-submittal meetings are held on Thursdays in 30 minute slots between 1:30 and 3:30 pm. ......................................................................................... . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 2 PLANNING DIVISION// v7.1.23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB2B4F-E47F-46CF-848B-5983DBA4435F PROCESS TIMELINE TIME FRAME 0 6-12 MONTHS • APPLICANT • STAFF - ································8 ·(014days}. APPLICATION RECEIVED Application submitted and pre-screened to ensure submittal requirements are met and fees are paid. PLANNER ASSIGNED Application reviewed by Planner to ensure complete documentation (if incomplete, the applicant will be provided a list of missing info to submit). ,,.. .. ·••• ••• • ••···• � ••••••••• • • • • ••••• -(04Sdays)-8 <{/ ............. APPLICATION MODIFICATIONS Modifications based on public input & City Department review comments (if needed, applicant must submit updates). Minor issues will be conditions of approval. 000 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notices sent to nearby neighbors, property owners and Community Councils (when required by ordinance). Application routed to City Departments for review. i1 0::::0 0 0 • •( 0 21 days)·• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • ( 0 21 days) .. PLANNING COMMISSION Public hearing scheduled, notices sent, staff report produced, and commission recommendation made. TRANSMITTAL TO COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS (CAN) Commission minutes approval and public record are assembled by staff. After review, the package is transmitted to City Council. .................................... ....,. CITY COUNCIL PROCESS City Council holds a briefing with staff during work session. Public hearing and action follows. Timeline determined by City Council office. U}UJIU.sfc.q1 J1.�/��n,,tc·il. .......................................................................................... DISCLAIMER: APPLICATION TIME FRAMES MAY VARY DEPENDING ON CURRENT WORKLOAD AND COMPLEXITY OF APPLICATIONS. INCOMPLETE OR MISSING INFORMATION ON DRAWINGS AND APPLICATION FORMS WILL DELAY THE PROCESS. 0 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB2B4F-E47F-46CF-848B-5983DBA4435F GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IMPORTANT INFORMATION D CD CONSULTATION Available prior to submitting an application. For questions regarding the requirements, email us at zoning@slcgov.com. SUBMISSION Submit your application online through the Citizen Access Portal. Learn how to submit online by following the step-by-step fil,!ide. REQUIRED FEES ' $1,138 filing fee, plus $121 per acre (in excess of 1 acre). ' Additional required notice fees will be assessed after submission. APPLICANT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME (OPTIONAL) McGillis School Rezone ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 721 South 1200 East Salt Lake City, Utah REQUEST Master Plan Amendment from "Low Density Residen�al" to "Ins�tu�onal" NAME OF APPLICANT PHONE The McGillis School Jim Brewer 313-909-7672 MAI LING ADDRESS EMAi L 668 South 1300 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 jbrewer@mcgillisschool.org APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY('"m!laer'; eol,se,11: rnquirn<I) IF OTHER, PLEASE LIST Owner Architect* Contractor* • Other* NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (i/rliJTernrti'Jrnm 1.tppli.:unt:) The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints MAILING ADDRESS 50 East North Temple Street Salt lake City, Utah 84111L Purchasing the property PHONE 801-240-1000 EMAi L kylehamblin@churchofjesuschrist.org OFFICE USE CASE NUMBER RECEIVED BY DATE RECEIVED TYPE OF AMENDMENT General Plan Text Land Use Map DISCLAIMER: PLEASE NOTE THAT AOOITIONALINFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED BY THEPROJECTPLANNERTO ENSURE ADEQUATE INFORMATION IS PROVIDEDFORSTAFF ANALYSIS. ALL INFORMATION REQUIREDFOIITAFF ANALYSIS WILL BECOPIED AND MADE PUBLIC, INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL00 ENGINEERING DRAWINGS,FORTHEPURPOSES OFPUBLIC REVIEW BY ANY INTERESTED PARTY. 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111 I I II 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 I 11111 GENERALPLAN AMENDMENTPROCESS 4 PLANNING DIVISION//v7.1.23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB284F-E47F-46CF-848B-5983DBA4435F ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY 1. This is to cer�fy that I am making an applica�on for the described ac�on by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This applica�on will be processed under the name provided below. 2. By signing the applica�on, I am acknowledging that I have read and understood the instruc�ons provided for processing this applica�on. The documents and/or informa�on I have submited 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. 3. I understand that my applica�on will not be processed un�l the applica�on is deemed complete by the assigned planner from the Planning Division. I acknowledge that a complete applica�on includes all of the required submital requirements and provided documents comply with all applicable requirements for the specific applica�ons. I understand that the Planning Division will provide, in wri�ng, a list of deficiencies that must be sa�sfied for this applica�on to be complete and it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the missing or corrected informa�on. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this applica�on. 4. I understand that a staff report will be made available for my review prior to any public hearings or public mee�ngs. This report will be on file and available at the Planning Division and posted on the Division website when it has been finalized. NAME OF APPLICANT EMAI L The McGillis School Jim Brewer jbrewer@mcgillisschool.org MAILING AD D RE S S PH ONE 668 South 1300 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 313-909-7672 APPLICATION TYPE DATE Master Plan Amendment "Low Density Residen�al" to "lns��onal" 8/2/2023 LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER CONSENT If the applicant is not the legal owner of the property, a consent from property owner must be provided. Proper�es with a single fee �tle owner may show consent by filling out the informa�on below or by providing an affidavit. Affirma�on of sufficient interest: I hereby affirm that I am the fee �tle owner of the below described property or that I have writen authoriza�on from the owner to pursue the described ac�on. Owner's authoriza�on to applicant to submit this applica�on is subject to the LEGAL DES C R I PTION OF SUBJE C T P R OPE R TY terms and condi�ons contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreement between See Atached applicant and Owner in connec�on with the Property. NAME OF OWNER EMAI L The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints kylehamblin@churcho�esuschrist.org MAILING AD D RE S S S IGNATU RE JDRJDR DATE 50 East North Temple Street Salt lake City, Utah 84111 L Kyle Hamblin (Aug 4, 2023 15:07 MDT) Aug 4, 2023 Kyle Hamblin Real Estate Manager 1. If a corpora�on is fee �tleholder, atach copy of the resolu�on of the Board of Directors authorizing the ac�on. 2. If a joint venture or partnership is the fee owner, atach copy of agreement authorizing ac�on on behalf of the joint venture or partnership. 3. If a Home Owner's Associa�on is the applicant then the representa�ve/president must atach a notarized leter sta�ng they have no�fied the owners of the proposed applica�on. A vote should be taken prior to the submital 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. DISCLAIMER: BEA DVISED THAT KNOWINGLYM AKING A FALSE, WRITTEN STATEMENT TOA GOVEMENTENTITYI S A CRIMEU NDER UTAH CODE CHAPTER 76-8, PART 5. SALT LAKE CITY WILL REF ER FOR PROSECUTION ANY KNOWING.Y FALSE REPRESENTATIONS MADE PERTAINING TO THEA PPLICANT'S INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................................. IN THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION • GENERAL PLANA MENDMENT PROCESS 5 PLANNING DIVISION // v7.1.23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DBDB284F-E47F-46CF-8488-5983DBA4435F SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS . lease provide the c,llowing :nfo1·mation with y, 1i 1r application. Confirm that you ha·;e included each of the requirements listed below by adding a check mark for each item. CHECK REQUIREMENTS (DISCRETIONARY PROCESS DETERMINED BY CITY COUNCIL) Q Project Description: • Describe the proposed general plan amendment. • A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. • Declare why the present general 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 general plan? If so, please include the exact language to be changed. INCOMPLETE INFORMATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED INITIALS DISCLAIMER: 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. ■ 11, • • • ■ ■ • e • • e + I I I I • ■ • ■ I lo • • • ■ • • ■ ■ ■ • • • ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ■ + • e ■ ■ • ■ ti ■ ■ ■ • I • ■ ■ e ■ ti ti ■ • I ■ ■ ■ e + • ti I I • ■ ■ • • ■ • ■ • • • ■ • • ■ • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 6 PLANNING DIVISION II v7.1.23 Attachment to Master Plan Amendment Salt Lake City Master Plan Amendment of the Douglas Ward located at 721 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000 That certain real property located in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, described and generally depicted as follows: Parcel 1: Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, in Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the SALT LAKE County Recorder's Office. TOGETHER WITH one-half of the vacated alley abutting the property on the East. Parcel 2: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 23, Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision and running thence North 89°57’27” East 34.257 feet; thence South 00°00’28” West 25.177 feet; thence North 89°42’34” East 36.257 feet; then South 00°00’28” West 25.00 feet; thence South 89°57’27” West 70.514 feet; thence North 00°00’28” East 50.015 feet to the point of beginning. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ACCOMPANYING THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT This Master Plan Amendment is necessary to accompany the Zoning Map Amendment to permit The McGillis School to rezone the Douglas Ward property for use as a school. The Zoning Map Amendment requests a change from Residential (R2) to Institutional (I). This Master Plan Amendment requests a change to the designation of the property in the "Future Land Use Map" of the plan from "Low Density Residential" to "Institutional." STATEMENT DECLARING AMENDMENT PURPOSE The McGillis School currently operates a school located at 668 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah. The McGillis School desires to acquire the Douglas Ward and use said property as an extension of their existing school. As desired by The McGillis School, the Douglas Ward property will be preserved and used for classes, meetings, assemblies, administration and community events. AMENDMENT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH GENERAL PLAN The Douglas Ward is currently zoned R-2. The McGillis School intends to use the property as an extension of their existing school. Although schools like The McGillis School are frequently located in residential areas, Salt Lake City Land Use Tables for permitted and conditional uses for residential districts shows that the proposed use is not a permitted use or a conditional use. Thus, it is necessary to amend the Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Map so The McGillis School may use the building as a school. This requested change is consistent with the Central Community Master Plan and will prolong the buildings useful life. The Central Community Master Plan “…encourages diversity of use, preservation of historic neighborhoods and buildings, and design excellence to maintain and enhance the quality of living in the Central Community.” The Master Plan desires to preserve and “enhance neighborhood character and historical integrity….” The East Central South neighborhood enjoys fairly homogeneous Low to High Density single-family residential dwellings intermixed with Public Lands and Institutional Lands as depicted on the map below. This Master Plan Amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Central Community Master Plan. This requested change will: 1) maintain the Central Community’s historic fabric; 2) support quality living without doing harm to citizens; and 3) preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods. If The McGillis School does not purchase the Douglas Ward and use the building as a school, the building will most likely be demolished changing the historic fabric and creating undesirable impacts to the neighborhood. Preserving the building by changing its use is far more desirable. This requested change is consistent with Residential Land Use Policy (RLU) 1.1 which desires to preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses. The requested change to Institutional Land Use is also consistent with the Central Community Master Plan’s Institutional Land Use policies and goals. Institutional Land, in this case a school, is intended to serve the general public and may be operated by either a public or private entity. The Institutional section of the Master Plan acknowledges that “Many institutional structures have historical significance and are worthy of preservation.” The McGillis School’s desired use of the Douglas Ward as a private elementary school is one of the six permitted uses in the Institutional Land Uses zone. The Master Plan acknowledges that “schools are an important part of the community fabric and an essential component of viable and sustainable neighborhoods.” The Master Plan encourages the city to keep schools “within neighborhoods as a community anchor and serve as a resource for residents of all ages.” The McGillis School’s desire to repurpose the Douglas Ward is consistent with Institutional Land Use Policy (INSLU) 1.4 which provide for appropriate “re-use of abandoned or vacant religious facilities with day care and other social services, residential or open space land use.” The McGillis School feels strongly that the Institutional zone would be more appropriate than the Public Lands zone. This amended application has been submitted to change to the Institutional zone. Section 21A.32.080 (E) requires a minimum of 40% open space. Section 21A.32.080(F) requires Interior Side Yard setbacks of 20’ and Rear Yard setbacks of 25’. Section 21A.32.080(G) requires landscaping Side Yard setbacks of 8’ and Rear Yard setbacks of 8’. The Douglas Ward is an existing structure and does not comply with these provisions. That said, the Applicant believes that the net benefit of keeping the existing structure with the requested zoning changes, outweighs the potential benefits that would be derived from enforcing these requirements. Many of these nonconformities would exist under the Public Lands zone (although the measurements maybe slightly different). Thus, the Applicant requests approval despite these nonconformities. Although many of the requirements of the two zones are very similar, the Institutional zone appears to require a traffic and parking study. The McGillis School intents to have their students dropped off and picked up at their existing school. Thus, the traffic and parking at the Douglas Ward will consist largely of staff parking. In this case, although the use will change, the Applicant believes that the new use will not significantly impact the traffic or parking. Thus, the Applicant requests the Zoning Administrator waive the requirement for a traffic and parking study. As outlined above, this Master Plan Amendment and accompanying Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with Salt Lake City ordinances and policies and are supported by the community because the request will preserve the existing neighborhood. This Master Plan Amendment does not amend the text of the General Plan. 1632662.1CHL Attachment to Zoning Amendment Salt Lake City Rezoning of the Douglas Ward located at 721 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE “DOUGLAS WARD” That certain real property located in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, described and generally depicted as follows: Parcel 1: Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, in Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the SALT LAKE County Recorder's Office. TOGETHER WITH one-half of the vacated alley abutting the property on the East. Parcel 2: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 23, Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision and running thence North 89°57’27”East 34.257 feet; thence South 00°00’28”West 25.177 feet; thence North 89°42’34 East 36.257 feet; then South 00°00’28”West 25.00 feet; thence South 89°57’27” West 70.514 feet; thence North 00°00’28” East 50.015 feet to the point of beginning. Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000. The legal description of the Property shall be determined by the Title Report. PURPOSE STATEMENT The purpose of this amendment to the Zoning Map is to permit a school on the Douglas Ward property. Thus, we request the zoning be changed from R2 to Institutional (I). This zoning is consistent with The McGillis School located at 668 South 1300 East and other private schools in Salt Lake City. This new use has support from neighbors and Council Member Ana Valdemoros has offered to help The McGillis School with this Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment, see attached letter. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY BEING REZONED The McGillis School currently operates a school located at 668 South 1300 East in Salt Lake City, Utah. The McGillis School desires to acquire the Douglas Ward and use said property as an extension of their existing school. As desired by The McGillis School, the Douglas Ward property will be used for classes, meetings, assemblies, and administration. LIST THE REASONS WHY THE PRESENT ZONING MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA The Douglas Ward is currently zoned R-2. The McGillis School intends to use the property as an extension of their existing school. Although schools like The McGillis School are frequently located in residential areas, Salt Lake City Land Use Tables for permitted and conditional uses for residential districts show that the proposed use is not a permitted use or a conditional use. Thus, it is necessary to amend the Zoning Map and Master Plan so The McGillis School may use the building as a school. LIST THE PARCEL NUMBERS TO BE CHANGED AS PART OF THE REZONING Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000. 1632662.1CHL Attachment to Master Plan Amendment Salt Lake City Master Plan Amendment of the Douglas Ward located at 721 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Tax Parcels Nos. 16-08-230-035-0000 and 16-08-230-010-0000 That certain real property located in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, described and generally depicted as follows: Parcel 1: Lots 16 through 21 inclusive, in Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the SALT LAKE County Recorder's Office. TOGETHER WITH one-half of the vacated alley abutting the property on the East. Parcel 2: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 23, Block 10, ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Subdivision and running thence North 89°57’27” East 34.257 feet; thence South 00°00’28” West 25.177 feet; thence North 89°42’34” East 36.257 feet; then South 00°00’28” West 25.00 feet; thence South 89°57’27” West 70.514 feet; thence North 00°00’28” East 50.015 feet to the point of beginning. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ACCOMPANYING THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT This Master Plan Amendment is necessary to accompany the Zoning Map Amendment to permit The McGillis School to rezone the Douglas Ward property for use as a school. The Zoning Map Amendment requests a change from Residential (R2) to Institutional (I). This Master Plan Amendment requests a change to the designation of the property in the "Future Land Use Map" of the plan from "Low Density Residential" to "Institutional." STATEMENT DECLARING AMENDMENT PURPOSE The McGillis School currently operates a school located at 668 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah. The McGillis School desires to acquire the Douglas Ward and use said property as an extension of their existing school. As desired by The McGillis School, the Douglas Ward property will be preserved and used for classes, meetings, assemblies, administration and community events. AMENDMENT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH GENERAL PLAN The Douglas Ward is currently zoned R-2. The McGillis School intends to use the property as an extension of their existing school. Although schools like The McGillis School are frequently located in residential areas, Salt Lake City Land Use Tables for permitted and conditional uses for residential districts shows that the proposed use is not a permitted use or a conditional use. Thus, it is necessary to amend the Zoning Map and the Future Land Use Map so The McGillis School may use the building as a school. This requested change is consistent with the Central Community Master Plan and will prolong the buildings useful life. The Central Community Master Plan “…encourages diversity of use, preservation of historic neighborhoods and buildings, and design excellence to maintain and enhance the quality of living in the Central Community.” The Master Plan desires to preserve and “enhance neighborhood character and historical integrity….” The East Central South neighborhood enjoys fairly homogeneous Low to High Density single-family residential dwellings intermixed with Public Lands and Institutional Lands as depicted on the map below. This Master Plan Amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Central Community Master Plan. This requested change will: 1) maintain the Central Community’s historic fabric; 2) support quality living without doing harm to citizens; and 3) preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods. If The McGillis School does not purchase the Douglas Ward and use the building as a school, the building will most likely be demolished changing the historic fabric and creating undesirable impacts to the neighborhood. Preserving the building by changing its use is far more desirable. This requested change is consistent with Residential Land Use Policy (RLU) 1.1 which desires to preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses. The requested change to Institutional Land Use is also consistent with the Central Community Master Plan’s Institutional Land Use policies and goals. Institutional Land, in this case a school, is intended to serve the general public and may be operated by either a public or private entity. The Institutional section of the Master Plan acknowledges that “Many institutional structures have historical significance and are worthy of preservation.” The McGillis School’s desired use of the Douglas Ward as a private elementary school is one of the six permitted uses in the Institutional Land Uses zone. The Master Plan acknowledges that “schools are an important part of the community fabric and an essential component of viable and sustainable neighborhoods.” The Master Plan encourages the city to keep schools “within neighborhoods as a community anchor and serve as a resource for residents of all ages.” The McGillis School’s desire to repurpose the Douglas Ward is consistent with Institutional Land Use Policy (INSLU) 1.4 which provide for appropriate “re-use of abandoned or vacant religious facilities with day care and other social services, residential or open space land use.” The McGillis School feels strongly that the Institutional zone would be more appropriate than the Public Lands zone. This amended application has been submitted to change to the Institutional zone. Section 21A.32.080 (E) requires a minimum of 40% open space. Section 21A.32.080(F) requires Interior Side Yard setbacks of 20’ and Rear Yard setbacks of 25’. Section 21A.32.080(G) requires landscaping Side Yard setbacks of 8’ and Rear Yard setbacks of 8’. The Douglas Ward is an existing structure and does not comply with these provisions. That said, the Applicant believes that the net benefit of keeping the existing structure with the requested zoning changes, outweighs the potential benefits that would be derived from enforcing these requirements. Many of these nonconformities would exist under the Public Lands zone (although the measurements maybe slightly different). Thus, the Applicant requests approval despite these nonconformities. Although many of the requirements of the two zones are very similar, the Institutional zone appears to require a traffic and parking study. The McGillis School intents to have their students dropped off and picked up at their existing school. Thus, the traffic and parking at the Douglas Ward will consist largely of staff parking. In this case, although the use will change, the Applicant believes that the new use will not significantly impact the traffic or parking. Thus, the Applicant requests the Zoning Administrator waive the requirement for a traffic and parking study. As outlined above, this Master Plan Amendment and accompanying Zoning Map Amendment are consistent with Salt Lake City ordinances and policies and are supported by the community because the request will preserve the existing neighborhood. This Master Plan Amendment does not amend the text of the General Plan. 1632662.1CHL Welcome to McGillis AN INDEPENDENT PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR KINDERGARTEN THROUGH 8TH GRADE Where community is a core value October 18, 2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commission, As Head of School at The McGillis School, and on behalf of the School’s Board of Trustees, I write to ask for your consideration in our application for Rezone and General Plan Amendment for the Douglas Ward property. I am also writing to share with you some background on The McGillis School and why we wish to acquire the Douglas Ward Building. Rooted in Jewish culture and values, our independent private school is open to all children and serves Kindergarten through 8th Grade. McGillis believes in creating community (kehilah), repairing the world (tikkun olam), and doing good and kind deeds (gemilut hasadim). We are currently in our fourth decade of operations in Salt Lake City and have called the former Douglas Elementary School building our home since 2001. We feel honored by the opportunity to add the Douglas Ward Building to our school community for many reasons. The Ward meetinghouse, located at 721 South 1200 East, is just one block from our school, and we were fortunate enough to temporarily hold classes and activities there in 2010, while our current building underwent construction for a major addition. Beyond that direct connection, we have long appreciated and nurtured our relationship with our immediate neighborhood, including the Douglas Ward and the East Central Community Council. We are invested in this neighborhood and wish to continue being a good neighbor. As demonstrated in how we approached our building’s expansion in 2010, we also have a proven history of preserving local architecture. We took great pride then in matching the exterior of our addition to the original building, creating a seamless look for the campus that we call home today. Finally, we have expanded our offerings in recent years and need more space. In the fall of 2020, McGillis opened its doors to students with language-based learning differences (dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia) by offering a program called The Learning Center (TLC), the only school-within-a-school model in the state of Utah. In just three years, this program, which began with 11 students, has tripled in size and will graduate its first 8th Grade class in May 2024. We anticipate the demand for this unique program to continue to grow year over year. I invite you to review the pages that follow, which demonstrate more about the history of McGillis. Please feel free to reach out to me directly should you have questions or wish to discuss further. Sincerely, Jim Brewer Head of School jbrewer@mcgillisschool.org Vision, Purpose, Mission, and Values Our VISION is to inspire and prepare our community for a lifetime of creating a better world. Our PURPOSE is to create individuals committed and able to repair the world. Our MISSION is to educate children and instill in our students a love of learning and the abilities to think critically, live ethically, and appreciate the value of each individual. McGillis Values Our teaching and our community are grounded in the fundamental values found in the Jewish culture and shared by all who seek to better the world. We celebrate Jewish traditions and holidays and bring the values they represent to life in the ways we educate our children, build our community, govern our school, and utilize our resources. Tzedakah Giving to others Tikkun Olam Repairing the world Gemilut Hasadim Doing good and kind deeds Limud L’shma Learning for the sake of learning Derech Eretz Having respect for all Kehilah Our community Lower School Kindergarten – Grade 5 Middle School Grades 6 - 8 Three Divisions, One Community Recognizing that each child is unique in their development, our grade-level teams collaborate as we think about how we implement classroom instruction. With various structures, students receive the personal support they need to achieve success and develop core skills. We have a vertical curriculum that is aligned around priority standards taught with fidelity at each grade level using a range of teaching methods, instructional materials and student groupings. The academic program, while sophisticated, is not based on a linear approach to curriculum. Rather, the emphasis is on inquiry-based learning and designed to broaden conceptual experience and create opportunities for students to construct highly personal and meaningful understanding. Classes are taught by masters in the fields of: • Science • Math • Ethics & Culture • Service Learning • Social-Emotional Learning • Outdoor Environmental Education • Language • Art • Music • Drama • Physical Education STUDENTS OF JEWISH DESCENT 15% STUDENTS OF COLOR GRADES K-8 STUDENTS STUDENT TO FACULTY RATIO 8:1 AVERAGE CLASS SIZE 19 The Learning Center Differences • Health & Wellness Respecting and Preserving Local history matters to our community Excerpt from Utah Heritage Foundation article: The McGillis School's renovation of the historic Douglas School is a wonderful example of how old school buildings can meet the needs of modern educators and students. On a tight timeline and budget, The McGillis School team successfully addressed many of the issues used to justify tearing down historic schools. For example, the McGillis project used center-core drilling to economically and effectively address seismic safety concerns. A wireless broadcast network eliminated the need for rewiring the building to accommodate new technologies. Sensitive alterations, including a new elevator and raised front entrance, made the school ADA accessible. The McGillis School used the original plans for Douglas School to guide its renovation and preserve much of the building's historic fabric. The original maple floors in the halls were refinished. Drop ceilings in the classrooms were raised to expose beautiful tall windows to their full height. On the exterior, water- damaged concrete was painstakingly repaired. An unobtrusive aluminum cap on the roof's parapet wall will protect it from further damage. The McGillis School used the original plans for Douglas School to guide its renovation and preserve much of the building's historic fabric. More than just a great building, the former Douglas School is also a landmark on 1300 East and the namesake of the Douglas neighborhood. When Salt Lake City School District announced plans to sell the building, many worried it would be demolished for new development. Fortunately, The McGillis School and the Douglas Neighborhood Association shared the goal of preserving the building and its surrounding open space. With its modern amenities in a welcoming historic setting, The McGillis School offers a wonderful environment for learning and preserves a neighborhood legacy. Article source: http://utahcfa.org/project/douglas-mcgillis-school Original Douglas School Building, 1915 Present-day McGillis School Building, 2023 2020 2021 2022 2023 FEBRUARY Douglas Neighborhood contacts McGillis sale of the Ward building. SEPTEMBER McGillis tours Douglas Ward building with member. JANUARY offer to purchase Douglas Ward. FEBRUARY Seller contacts McGillis with Douglas Ward to McGillis. offer to purchase Douglas Ward. JUNE McGillis signs and APRIL Seller chooses AUGUST non-refundable. OCTOBER Planning zoning. DECEMBER ends, closing deadline 12/9. Acquisition Timeline NOVEMBER McGillis officially purchasing the property. FEBRUARY Seller chooses and final LOI and offer to purchase Douglas Ward. Cory Sinclair Board Chair Let’s Connect! Brewer Head of School Michael VanTyne Director of Operations Letters of Support Jason Stevenson McGillis Parent and former Chair of East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO) Esther Hunter East Central Community Council (ECCC) Frederick Stagbrook de Clairmont Neighbor Brandy Strand Preservation Utah *Ana Valdemoros Salt Lake City Council *William McClelland Former Bishop of Douglas Ward *Letters written in 2022 addressed to seller in previous acquisition effort. October 5, 2023 Dear Salt Lake City Planning Commissioners: I am writing in support of the Douglas Ward rezone and general plan amendment proposed by The McGillis School (PLNPCM2023-00496 and PLNPCM2023-00639). I want to disclose that two of my children started attending McGillis school this year, giving me a stake as a parent affiliated with this school. I also have a community connection to this project. Last October I stepped down after serving for six years as the co-chair of the East Liberty Park Community Organization (ELPCO), the community council located two blocks south of the East Central neighborhood where this project is located. At ELPCO, I engaged with multiple land use and zoning applications that came before our council and this commission. I saw The Good. The Bad. And the Ugly. The application by The McGillis School is in the “Good” category. First, this proposal will extend the active lifespan of the Douglas Ward for many years. During multiple community meetings, residents told McGillis and community leaders that their primary goal was the preservation of the Douglas Ward building. The McGillis School intends to renovate and update the ward building to use as an extension of their existing school. McGillis has already demonstrated their willingness to preserve buildings with local significance through their skillful renovation of the Douglas School, which now houses their lower grade classrooms. McGillis purchased the 1916-era Douglas School in 2002 and completed renovation and seismic retrofitting to open the new school in time for students by the next fall. When McGillis needed to expand in 2010, they maintained the original Douglas School and constructed a modern architectural mirror of the building on adjacent land and connected the buildings with interior walkways. Second, McGillis has proven itself as a reliable and accessible community partner. The school routinely hosts community council meetings as well as PCE plume information sessions and special events, such as a city council and mayoral candidate forum earlier this month. The goodwill generated by the school’s approachability has led to widespread support for this project from neighbors and the East Central Community Council. Third, the traffic and parking impacts of this application have been addressed thoroughly in the application. McGillis plans to use the Douglas Ward for staff parking, keeping the current pick-up and drop-off locations for students at the existing school. Based on my experience with my own kids at McGillis this year, the school devotes significant time and attention to planning and improving parking, traffic, congestion, and student safety. Based on these points, plus the broad community support that accompanies this application, I urge you to support the Douglas Ward rezone and general plan amendment proposed by The McGillis School. Sincerely, Jason Stevenson September 29, 2023 Meagan Booth Principal Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Neighborhoods Meagan.booth@slcgov.com 801.535.7213 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Salt Lake City Corporation Regarding: 721 S. 1200 E. - PLNPCM2023-00496 & PLNPCM2023-00639 Dear Planning Staff and Planning Commissioners, The East Central Community is in complete unanimous support of the McGillis School rezone and master plan amendment for the Douglas Ward property. The ECC has had a longstanding positive and trusting relationship with McGillis. We cannot say enough good about this school, their benefit to our neighborhood and the thoughtful way they conduct all aspects of their property/school in the neighborhood. They are great neighbors. It is for this reason when the Douglas Ward building was being vacated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the ECC approached the McGillis administration to explore the possibility of their needing this additional space. We are very pleased that this opportunity is becoming a reality. This proposal was reviewed during the August 10th general membership meeting of the ECC with approximately 72 neighbors present. After the presentation it was proposed that a positive recommendation be forwarded to the city by acclamation. The vote was 72 to 0 in favor of the recommendation with no conditions. Prior to the ECC meeting the proposal was also distributed to the proprietary email list of 7052 ECC members requesting feedback on the proposal. Thirteen positive comments were received along with one question related to future uses of the zone should McGillis sell the property in the future. This proposal was also reviewed against neighbor, neighborhood, master plan, traffic, all other existing city plans for potential impacts and implications by the ECC Community Development and Land Use Committee who gave their full endorsement of the proposal. With best regards, Esther Hunter Chair, and on behalf of the East Central Community Council eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com 30th September 2023 Dear Salt Lake City zoning and planning team members, Like many fellow residents in our neighbourhood, I am delighted that McGillis school has been able to buy the old, disused Douglas ward chapel. As a resident of the Douglas neighbourhood I support McGillis school's request for a zoning change from 'R2' to 'institutional'. Best regards, Frederick Stagbrook de Clairmont 801-231-4782 reservatiori Utah October 1, 2023 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 S State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Planning Commission, Since its congregation vacated it in 2019, Preservation Utah has been deeply concerned about the future of the historic Douglas Chapel located at 721 South 1200 East, Salt Lake City. Dating back to its dedication in 1953 by President David O McKay and continuing until very recently, the Douglas Chapel has served as a vital center for the surrounding community, fostering gatherings, education, and acts of service. Moreover, with its distinctive blend of American Colonial and midcentury architectural elements, this chapel has proudly stood as a dignified neighborhood landmark, embodying a legacy of faith and community service thanks to the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who funded its construction and maintained it for over seven decades. On behalf of Preservation Utah, I express our wholehearted support for the proposal put forth by the McGillis School for the adaptive reuse of the Douglas Chapel. The McGillis School envisions a future where the Douglas Chapel continues to play a vital role as a community gathering place, albeit with a fresh purpose. Their proposal seeks to transform the chapel into an educational center catering to students with language- based learning differences. This initiative preserves the chapel's association with education and community service and ensures its continued significance as a cherished neighborhood landmark. I am confident that the members of the Douglas Ward will welcome the McGillis School's stewardship of the Douglas Chapel, given the school's strong commitment to community relationships and historic preservation. Over the years, our team has engaged in discussions with the school's administration, trustees, and members of the Douglas Neighborhood Council. This proposal is mutually beneficial for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the McGillis School, the Douglas Neighborhood, the Salt Lake City preservation community, and, most importantly, the underserved population of students who will ultimately benefit from this revitalized space. If our team can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 13_v{a Brandy Strand Executive Director 17:'> i•,J Cnnyon f d, S/llt l.n ,,, City, U I 8410.1 (f'OI) 533-0EISH p10.SP!VcJ1ionuloh 'ltn [5> DocuSign Envelope ID: C26CC5AA-27E0-4337-B7E2-ED6DBD6F6552 March 22, 2022 Dear Friends of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints: As the representative of District 4, I write to offer my full support of The McGillis School in their pursuit of the purchase of the Douglas Ward. I am fully aware of the alignment of the school’s vision and purpose with the history of the Ward, and the wishes of the neighborhood. This opportunity arrives at an ideal time for McGillis. The school launched a new division - The Learning Center - which serves students with dyslexia and other language-based learning differences. The Learning Center is unlike any other program in the Mountain West and has doubled in size in its second year. To accommodate future growth and serve more learners and families who need these unique educational services, the school requires additional space. The Douglas Ward offers 20% additional space to the school’s existing facilities with space for public gatherings, performances, and indoor play space. Exactly what any school could need. Over the past months, District Four community voiced their support during various council meetings for The McGillis School to acquire the Douglas Ward. The school’s contributions to our local community align with our vision and needs for our neighborhood. I have attended these meetings and directly heard from my constituents of their full support and desire for McGillis to grow in the neighborhood. The School and the Douglas Neighborhood have taken good care of one another for decades, both bringing value to the neighborhood. The school has a record of preserving places that matter to its nearby residents and welcoming neighbors to their campus. It has been brought to my attention that zoning changes may be necessary to accommodate the needs of McGillis should they acquire the Douglas Ward. The school has my full support should rezoning be necessary. I am confident that support would extend to my peers on the Council to help McGillis achieve the zoning necessary to perform their educational vision at the Douglas Ward. Sincerely, Ana Valdemoros Salt Lake City Council Member Council District Four AV/pt OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL WWW.SLCCOUNCIL.COM 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 PO BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5476 EMAIL: COUNCIL.COMMENTS@SLCGOV.COM January 14, 2022 Dear Church Real Estate Department, Over the years, the Douglas Ward members and Community have enjoyed a great relationship of working together with the McGillis School. We have shared our Ward house many times for their school activities, and we have used their facilities for community meetings. The McGillis School has done a lot of outreach in the community, for example, annually they have provided leaf raking for neighborhood residents. As a Ward I know it would be a very positive outcome to have the McGillis School purchase the property because there is already a family and community connection. The feeling of the ward members, especially those who have called the Douglas Building their home from its construction, remember watching parents and other Ward members work together digging foundations, putting on bake sales, rummage sales and Ward dinners to contribute funds to the construction costs. The McGillis School management will maintain the physical and emotional essence of the building. The concern is that another party will not do the same and indeed destroy the building in favor of an apartment complex. I appreciate your kind consideration of this matter on behalf of the Douglas members. Bishop William McClelland (erit6) u' --t/_/41v-v-c/L _L_=-_, <C,._===--=-=...L=--- -= ----- lL, 6th January 2022 We, neighbors of the McGillis School, strongly support the school's desire to purchase the Douglas Ward. McGillis School has been a great and reputable institution within our neighborhood for many, many years. Furthermore, we feel that the school's intention to use the chapel to expand its special-needs programme is a worthy cause. We also feel that preserving the building is important to us, for it has been part of our neighborhood for many decades. The signatures below unquestionably represent the general sentiment of our neighborhood. l--- l,Q::!..._ L :..J.. /....j_ =-- !_-'---1.-t._.. -l-- - l � t v A (Cl --------------- I I - N 2-.Z- I q /1?-Z f------=-..z= :--"-J.-i,+1./,L-L-------I-I-WL--==::::..; --=--.- / ;;z_ ;5'LL 'g<//0,2_ ro(J_, J)t ?> [c1 1------++--...,.,._�-----.------'--------'---_....:....-- . --==--..:'.....l L ) V\ yL-f 6;71.,. LC, urgt/1 i-\:::�.J....l,_!_....,q-=.,.-=,t1�"---l,.i.::....s,L_-'--=-��!::Ll..4----?+-...:.. -=----=.,....:::i.-Ll '6 (;I o7 i----�----'---'-!.------1.,.4-..!£...._-U-. :_��L._:....:_....=...L-....JC. -.L--:-£.---=LL:{=::..J 9.Lj/ 0;>-- 1-----""-= ....,,....--1- .!<...:........------=--- ::::.....:..... ------------------ l L t: j,_ ...::: L ::::_: J_..4..L.::¥, 'd...Lk,.. .s.t :::_Jl_'LC-==---i g- '/- I cJ z. , 'S i_ e.. Bt+I o ?._, 4) MAILING LIST NAME ADDRESS UNIT CITY STATE ZIP Current Occupant 1203 E 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1237 E 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1158 E 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 729 S ELIZABETH ST Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 724 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 768 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 730 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 721 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 771 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1221 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1229 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1233 E 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 749 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 756 S DOUGLAS ST #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 711 S 1200 E Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 1208 E 700 S Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 763 S 1200 E #NFF Salt Lake City UT 84102 Current Occupant 731 S DOUGLAS ST Salt Lake City UT 84102 NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP ANDERSON, DORTHY A 1528 E ARLINGTON DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BAILEY, JAMES A & ANDREA E 711 S ELIZABETH ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 BIG CHAINRING VENTURES, LLC 12553 S HERITAGE HILL CT HERRIMAN UT 84096 BLACKHAM, SONJA M JTBLACKMAN, BRIAN JT 1084 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 BRUCE THOMAS SHIELDS & DIANA HET AL 1234 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CAROLYN ABRAVANEL TRABRAVANEL, CAROLY 1235 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 CASTLETON, JASON D &MEGHAN L S; JT 4756 S QUAIL POINT RD MILLCREEK UT 84124 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OFLATTER-DAY SAIN 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 CLAYTON, DALE H; TRET AL 738 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 DAY, REBECCA W; TR(RWD TR) 760 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 DIBBLEE, RICHARD C; TR(R&HD FAM TRUST) 721 S ELIZABETH ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 FOGELSON, AARON L &FEDER, DEBORAH S; JT 354 S 1100 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 GAWRON, LORI; JTGAWRON, ANDREW; JT 709 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 GERSTENBERGER, JOHN; JTGERSTENBERGER, M1180 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 HANSEN, AMY L 1215 E 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 HLP HODINGS IV LLC 9351 S SUNSET RIDGE CIR SANDY UT 84092 HORNE, CHRISTIE D 7259 S VIANSA CT MIDVALE UT 84047 HSU, TUNG & RU-LIN (JT) 737 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 IWASAKI, MARK & JODI L (JT) 720 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 JENSEN, ERIC A 746 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 KARAS, LAUREN E 761 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 KATZ, BRADLEY J; JTCONRAD-KATZ, TRACEY E; J 1225 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 KEPNER-SYBOUNMY, KIMBERLY; JTSYBOUNMY 760 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 KNETTLES, KIMBERLEY M 1212 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LAMARCHE, SHAUN P; JTREES, ANASTACIA; JT 741 S ELIZABETH ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LONG, LARRY 721 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LONGO, SIMONE;ET AL 1207 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 LUND, JOHN M 731 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MACEY, STEPHEN JBUTLER, LAUREN M 1646 N PLUM CT CANBY OR 97013 MASHKURI, PARI L 743 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MAYEDA, SHAUNA R 717 S ELIZABETH ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MCCLELLAND, WILLIAM &DORI L; JT 747 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 MCKELLAR, MARK 728 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 PARLIAMNET LLC 1239 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 PARRISH, TYLER; JTPARRISH, ANGELIA L; JT 4826 S QUAIL POINT RD MILLCREEK UT 84124 PEERS, THERESA M; JTPEERS, MATTHEW L; JT 740 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 PERFUMO, PIETRO &CARRARA, MARIA PIA; JT 720 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 POLLARD, AARON W; JTPOLLARD, ERIKA V M; J 676 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 PURSER, JAMES E 1204 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 RASSIAH, PREMAVATHY 715 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 REEVE, MARK; TCREEVE, ROSEMARY; TC 753 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 REID, JULIA E &LUNBECK, JAMES E; JT 761 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 RYBALKIN, ANDREY 1221 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 S T TR;ET AL 724 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SALAZAR, DALE C &VASQUEZ, ANNA M; JT 754 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SCHWARZ, MARTIN R &BETH ANN; JT 705 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SERIES THREE, AN INDIVIDUALPROTECTED SERI 347 RANCH DR ALPINE UT 84004 SHEA, TIMOTHY M &SCHWARTZ-SHEA, PEREGR 1172 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SMITH, WHITNEY R; JTSMITH, TYLER B; JT 1213 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SNOW, DANIEL W &JACCI L; JT 737 S 1200 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 SUNDER LLC 3135 S METROPOLITAN WY MILLCREEK UT 84109 SVENDSEN, KATHLEEN A; TR(KS LIV TRUST) 1164 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TELFER, DIANA L 744 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 TRABERT, BRITTON L 766 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 VELA ASSET PROTECTION TRET AL 1228 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WALDRON, JOY; TR 1216 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WILLIAM MULLIGAN & KIMBERLYKERNAN REV 741 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WINTER-DUNN REV TRET AL 750 S DOUGLAS ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 WOO, WEI-CHI J 1222 E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 Page | 1 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards NEW INFORMATION At the first briefing, the Council identified several potential funding shifts. The Housing Stability Division reached out to applicants for feedback about how scalable an application’s funding level could be. Table 1 below shows where funding could be potentially freed up to use for other applications that did not receive a funding recommendation. Scenarios 1-3 provide options for Council consideration to use the freed-up funding (from Table 1). This is not a comprehensive list of potential funding scenarios but intended to facilitate Council deliberations. Table 1: Which applications that are recommended for funding should be reduced? The Potential $ Change column shows the funding level reduction that would still allow the program or project to proceed largely as proposed. Note that two applications (#6 and #11) were withdrawn by the applicant which frees up $200,000. Another $101,540 could be freed up from five other applications. The two applications from The Children’s Center Utah are readily scalable and could also be reduced to shift funding to more applications. The Council may wish to discuss how much to reduce the recommended funding amounts such as shown in Table 1 below, or only reallocate the $200,000 from the two withdrawn applications, or a combination of approaches. Organization Application #Recommended Funding Potential $ Change Notes #3 Housing Case Management $51,322 (-$11,322)New total would be $40,000. First Step House #4 Restorative Care Pathways $99,908 (-$17,908) New total would be $82,000. The applicant would prefer reduction to this program instead of #3 above. #7 Young Children Outpatient Clinic Services $76,923 TBD The Children’s Center Utah #14 Therapeutic Preschool $86,923 TBD For both programs the applicant stated they track clients by zip code to limit services to City residents. Both programs are scalable. The recommended amounts are less than 10% of the program’s total funding The United Way #5 Well-being Room at Bryant Middle School $100,000 (-$20,000) New total would be $80,000. Project Timeline: 1st Briefing: October 17, 2023 2nd Briefing: November 14, 2023 3rd Briefing: December 5, 2023 (if needed) Potential Final Vote: December 5 or 12, 2023 Page | 2 Organization Application #Recommended Funding Potential $ Change Notes #6 Well-being Room at Bennion Elementary School $100,000 WITHDRAWN (-$100,000) This application has been withdrawn; the partnership between The United Way and school has changed since original submission. #8 Well-being Room at Rose Park Charter School $100,000 (-$20,000) New total would be $80,000. #11 Access to Health Services $100,000 WITHDRAWN (-$100,000) This application has been withdrawn; State funding was secured for the FTE.The Road Home #12 Access to Mental Health Services $100,000 None The applicant stated they would be unable to hire the FTE with an award less than the recommended amount. #19 Behavioral Health Support $92,791 None The applicant stated they would struggle to hire the FTE with an award less than the recommended amount. Asian Association of Utah #20 Rental Assistance $93,010 ($32,310)New total would be $60,700. TOTAL POTENTIALLY FREE UP (-$301,540) Which applications should receive the freed-up funding? Council Members identified applications #24, #28, #32, and #38 as of interest. They also expressed a desire to shift some funding away from organizations with multiple applications recommended to receive funding so that limited funding could be spread further. The tables below provide potential scenarios for Council consideration. The Council may wish to discuss whether there is majority support for a specific funding allocation approach. Scenario 1: Strictly follow advisory board scores and award maximum eligible amounts Organization Application #Recommended Funding Potential $ Change Notes Boys & Girls Club of Greater Salt Lake #23 Academic Success and Career Readiness $54,198 +$20,845 This application was eligible for $75,043 but recommended for less because only $54,198 remained after higher scored applications NeighborWorks #24 Financial Success Program: Education & Coaching $0 +$90,000 Guadalupe Education Center #25 Early Learning Center Programs Transportation $0 +$100,000 Family Support Center #26 Mental Health and Clinical Family Counseling $0 +$50,000 Suazo Business Center #27 Supporting Underserved and Low Income Entrepreneurs $0 +$40,695 This application is eligible for $100,000 but less is listed because only $40,695 would be remaining after higher scored applications TOTAL $301,540 Page | 3 Scenario 2: Fund Council identified applications of interest Organization Application #Recommended Funding Potential $ Change Notes NeighborWorks #24 Financial Success Program: Education & Coaching $0 +$90,000 The applicant has yet to respond to questions about how scalable is their program funding. The Inn Between #28 Medical Respite Housing & Hospice for the Homeless $0 +$70,000 The applicant stated they would be able to use any amount as the uses are readily scalable. Alliance House #32 Case Management $0 +$100,000 The applicant stated they would be able to use any amount as the uses are readily scalable. Fit to Recover #38 Pillars of Mental Health $0 +$41,540 The applicant stated they could provide the intended services with an award of $38,700 or more. TOTAL $301,540 Scenario 3: Spread limited funding further by partially funding lower scored applications Organization Application #Recommended Funding Potential $ Change Notes NeighborWorks #24 Financial Success Program: Education & Coaching $0 +$50,000 The applicant has yet to respond. Guadalupe Education Center #25 Early Learning Center Programs Transportation $0 +$50,000 Family Support Center #26 Mental Health and Clinical Family Counseling $0 +$50,000 Suazo Business Center #27 Supporting Underserved and Low Income Entrepreneurs $0 +$50,000 The Inn Between #28 Medical Respite Housing & Hospice for the Homeless $0 +$31,420 The applicant stated they would be able to use any amount as the uses are readily scalable. Alliance House #32 Case Management $0 +$31,420 The applicant stated they would be able to use any amount as the uses are readily scalable. Fit to Recover #38 Pillars of Mental Health $0 +$38,700 The applicant stated they could provide the intended services with an award of $38,700 or more. TOTAL $301,540 Page | 4 The 4th Street Clinic and The Road Home At the first briefing, the Council asked for clarification of the contractual relationship between the 4th Street Clinic and The Road Home. This relates to applications #11, #12, and #15. The Road Home responded that they do “not pass through any funding to 4th Street Clinic for services at any of its housing or homeless resource center locations. We have no contractual relationship with 4th Street Clinic aside from one MOU that outlines expectations for their staff our State-licensed emergency shelters and one MOU for a pilot program for the Magnolia. We are not familiar with their application, but our application does not involve their team or duplicate services that are currently provided by either team at our housing and resource center sites.” Contingency in Case Applicant is Unable to Fully Use Funding The Council may wish to discuss whether to provide a contingency to the Housing Stability Division for how to handle remaining funding in the event an applicant is unable to fully use the grant award. The advisory committee provided a contingency for a similar circumstance: if an application was later deemed an ineligible use, then the funding should be reallocated to the next highest scoring application moving down the funding log until all available funding is spent. The Council could choose to use this approach for a contingency for how to handle funding applicants are unable to use. Alternatively, the Council could choose to award any unused funding to one or more specified applications.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE In April 2022 as part of Budget Amendment #4 of FY2022, the Council approved one-time $2 million from American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA for local nonprofit direct assistance grant awards managed by the Community & Neighborhoods Department (CAN). The advisory Community Recovery Committee and the Mayor are recommending the full $2 million be awarded across 23 applications (see Attachment 1 for the funding log). The Council has final decision-making authority over the grant awards including the dollar amounts and uses. Please see “Additional Information” section for more on applications, award limits, scoring, and clarifications about the recommended funding log. Applications were accepted during the month of September last year. The Administration reviewed all applications for eligibility and compliance with federal ARPA guidance. In Budget Amendment #6 of FY2023 the Council changed the funding source for the $2 million from ARPA to instead be from the General Fund. The Administration has proceeded to align the grant eligibility with ARPA regulations in keeping with the program’s original intent. Tracking and compliance reporting to the Federal Government is no longer necessary because ARPA funds are not being used. Organizations will be required to track and submit documentation to the City. The $2 million is still subject to City Code Chapter 2.20 governing the Community Recovery Committee and grants program (see Attachment 2 for the ordinance). The funding recommendations propose to award the full eligible amount requested by applicants. This results in more funding per applicant and less applicants receiving funding. Note this is a different approach than the local business assistance grant awards managed by the Economic Development Department where funding recommendations were for a percentage of the full eligible amount (e.g., scored 85 so received 85% of the eligible amount requested). The Council also approved a separate one-time $2 million from ARPA for local business assistance grant awards that are managed by the Economic Development Department. Note the direct nonprofit assistance grants managed by CAN are not a passthrough to local businesses like the Economic Development nonprofit passthrough grants which the Council approved on October 3. The advisory committee issued funding recommendations for the $481,400 of remaining local business assistance grant awards which will have a separate Council briefing tentatively scheduled for November. Goal of the briefing: Review the recommended grant awards, identify questions and potential modifications to the awards, and determine whether the Council is comfortable scheduling an adoption vote. 40 Applications Reviewed and Scored by the Committee A total of 40 applications were reviewed and scored by the Committee as shown in the Attachment 1 funding log. The total requested funding is $3,833,313. The total eligible funding requested is less at $3,317,126 because Page | 5 $516,187 was found to be ineligible. The project description column in the funding log identifies whether an application was fully or partially eligible. The highest possible score is 100. The top scored application (#1) received a score of 87.17 points. The lowest scored application (#23) that is recommended for funding received a score of 75 points. In the Attachment 1 funding log, the third column from the right identifies the service category for each application. Of the 23 applications recommended for funding: - 10 applications (#1, #3, #4, #7, #10, #12, #14, #15, #17, and #19) are in the mental health assistance category, - Seven applications (#5, #6, #8, #9, #13, #22, and #23) are in the expanded educational opportunities category, - Three applications (#16, #20, and #21) are in the rental assistance / eviction prevention category, - One application (#2) is in the retraining displaced workers category, - One application (#11) is in the healthcare access category, - One application (#18) is in the mitigating the digital divide category. Applicants Receiving Multiple Awards for Different Programs There are several organizations that submitted multiple applications for different programs and are recommended to receive multiple grant awards. Below is a list of those organizations and their applications. - $151,230 for First Step House o $51,322 for #3 case management, and o $99,908 for #4 restorative care pathways - $163,846 for The Children’s Center Utah o $76,923 for #7 young children outpatient clinic services, and o $86,923 for #14 therapeutic preschool - $300,000 for The United Way; note that all three applications would build out well-being rooms and expand experiential learning o $100,000 for #5 Bryant Middle School, o $100,000 for #6 Bennion Elementary School (see policy question #4), and o $100,000 for #8 Rose Park Charter School - $200,000 for The Road Home o $100,000 for #11 access to health services in homeless resource centers, and o $100,000 for #12 access to mental health services - $185,801 for the Asian Association of Utah o $92,791 for #19 behavioral health support, and o $93,010 for #20 rental assistance Rounding Awards to Nearest $100 or $1,000 The Finance Department recommended rounding grant awards to the nearest $100 for easier tracking and compliance reporting to the Federal Government. The Council adjusted Phase 1 local business direct grant awards and local nonprofit passthrough grant awards to be rounded to the nearest $100. The local nonprofit direct grant recommendations are not rounded. In response to staff questions on this topic, CAN provided a funding log that rounds grant awards to the nearest $100. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Questions about Recommended Grant Awards – Does the Council have any questions about the 23 Page | 6 recommended local nonprofit direct assistance grant awards? 2. Rounding Awards – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to round the awards to the nearest $100 as recommended by the Finance Department. This rounding was done for two phases of local business assistance grant awards. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration to use the rounding approach for other grant programs going forward such as the annual HUD grants. 3. Awarding Grants to Organizations with Multiple Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the pros and cons of awarding grants to organizations that submitted multiple applications vs spreading limited grant awards further to more organizations. A list of applicants proposed to receive multiple grant awards is listed on the prior page. 4. Application #6 The United Way at Bennion Elementary – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the Salt Lake City School District studying potential closure of Bennion Elementary could impact the intended benefits of the $100,000 grant award. For example, the project description states the funds would be used for physical improvements to “build out a well-being room.” The School Board has not decided which elementary schools to close and is currently studying a list of seven potential closures. 5. Annual HUD Grants and New Five-year Consolidated Plan (2025-2029) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to share information with the nonprofit applicants about how to apply to the City’s other grant programs such as annual HUD grants. The Council may also wish to ask whether feedback on community needs received during this process could inform updating the City’s Consolidated Plan for the next five-year period (2025-2029) such as new or modified goals and strategies. ADDITIONIAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Award Limits The maximum award is $100,000 for any of the ARPA assistance grants per City Code Chapter 2.20.040(A) (see Attachment 2). There is no minimum award set in ordinance. The City uses minimum awards for other programs such as annual grants from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and the Capital Improvement Program or CIP. Grant recipients must submit documentation for reimbursements and file quarterly reports with the City. Scoring See Attachment 1 funding log where scores for all applications are shown in the right most column ordered from highest to lowest score. A total of 100 points was available. Up to 35 points were awarded by the Administration through a risk assessment which is a common requirement of federal funding. Up to 65 points were available by averaging the individual scores from the advisory committee members. The administrative and committee member average points were combined to yield the total score. Spending Deadlines Under federal guidelines ARPA funds must be obligated by the end of calendar year 2024 and must be fully spent by the end of calendar year 2026. City Code Chapter 2.20.050 (see Attachment 2) sets an earlier spending deadline of December 31, 2024, to provide public benefits at a faster pace. Community Recovery Committee (See Attachment 2 for the ordinance) In April 2022, the Council enacted Chapter 2.20 of Salt Lake City Code creating the time-limited Community Recovery Committee as an official City board. Section 2.20.060 of the ordinance identifies a sunset for the Committee once all the ARPA program funds are expended or the federal spending deadline has passed. The Committee reviews applications and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for the ARPA local business and nonprofit assistance grants. The Committee has seven or nine members who also serve on other City boards or committees. Grant Categories (See Attachment 2 for the ordinance) No specific categories are identified for the business assistance grants. These grants are focused on small and local Page | 7 businesses, tourism, travel, or hospitality, and support for artists and artisan businesses. A business must first demonstrate an economic and/or operational hardship caused by the pandemic, and then propose an ARPA eligible use for the grant funds. Specific categories are identified for the nonprofit assistance grants which are: “offering services to retrain displaced workers; providing legal or other assistance for evictions or rent relief; expanding educational opportunities; deploying resources to mitigate the digital divide; supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 including childcare or after school programs; and providing access to healthcare services including mental health support.” (2.20.040(A)) Note nonprofits may submit applications for programs not listed above. ATTACHMENTS 1. Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance ARPA Grant Funding Log 2. Community Recovery Committee Chapter 2.20 of Salt Lake City Code ACRONYMS ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act CRC – Community Recovery Committee CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department CIP – Capital Improvement Program FY – Fiscal Year HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department TOTAL UNALLOCATED FUNDING: 200,000.00$ 1 Rape Recovery Center REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:100,000.00$ 2 Wasatch Community Gardens REQUEST:76,173.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,173.00$ CRC:76,173.00$ MAYOR:76,173.00$ COUNCIL:76,173.00$ 3 First Step House REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:51,322.00$ CRC:51,322.00$ MAYOR:51,322.00$ COUNCIL:51,322.00$ 4 First Step House REQUEST:99,908.40$ ELIGIBLE:99,908.40$ CRC:99,908.40$ MAYOR:99,908.40$ COUNCIL:99,908.40$ 5 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:100,000.00$ Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Retraining Displaced Workers Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING Clinical Therapy Services for Survivors of Sexual Violence Case Management Restorative Care Pathways Bryant Middle School Title 1 students Salaries, program supplies, and training PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) 87.17 85.00 83.00 82.50 Service Category The program will provide behavioral health treatment for individuals experiencing homelessness alongside substance use disorders and mental illness. This service helped bridge service gaps for the homeless population amidst the challenges posed by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend SLCSE Bryant Middle School by engaging the community, building out a well-being room and expanding experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Salaries and fringe benefits individuals with substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and histories of homelessness, incarceration, and unstable employment; AMI <= 40% Salaries, wages, and fringe benefits individuals with substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and recurrent homelessness; AMI <= 40% sexual assault survivors; unhoused; AMI <= 65% The program will provide behavioral health care to individuals who have suffered from sexual violence, a problem that has been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide job training services to women facing or experiencing homelessness, whose existing economic and mental health challenges have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide case management for individuals with mental health challenges, substance use disorders, and increased medical needs who have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Women experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Employee wages, staff wages and benefits Wasatch Community Gardens 82.50 Staffing salaries and benefits Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated November 14, 2023 Page 1 TOTAL UNALLOCATED FUNDING: 200,000.00$ COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category 6 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:WITHDRAWN 7 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,923.00$ CRC:76,923.00$ MAYOR:76,923.00$ COUNCIL:76,923.00$ 8 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:100,000.00$ 9 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah REQUEST:80,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:80,000.00$ CRC:80,000.00$ MAYOR:80,000.00$ COUNCIL:80,000.00$ 10 Odyssey House REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:100,000.00$ Expanded Educational Opportunities Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) 81.83 underserved youth; AMI <= 65% Employee salaries and benefits Expanded Educational Opportunities Salaries, grants, supplies, and training One-to-One Youth Mentoring Harm Reduction & Outreach Program The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend Rose Park Charter School by engaging the community, enhancing after-school programs, building out a well- being room, and promoting experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend SLCSE M. Lynn Bennion Elementary School by employing the Playworks program, building out a well-being room and expanding experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide outpatient clinical services to enhance the emotional well-being of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their families to address the mental health crisis exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide professional development to volunteers who would bring developmental relationships to underserved youth in Salt Lake City. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The Program will provide outreach events, distribution and expansion of harm reduction kits, and healthcare appointments for individuals experiencing homelessness who have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Title 1 students Rose Park Charter School 82.33 82.17 82.00 81.20 individuals with substance use disorders, mental illness, and a history of homelessness; AMI <= 40% Harm reduction kits, staff wages, and program supplies Outpatient Clinical Services M. Lynn Bennion School Program and training supplies AMI <= 65% Salaries, fringe costs, fringe benefits, and supplies Title 1 students Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated November 14, 2023 Page 2 TOTAL UNALLOCATED FUNDING: 200,000.00$ COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category 11 The Road Home REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:WITHDRAWN 12 The Road Home REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:100,000.00$ 13 University Neighborhood Partners REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:96,500.00$ CRC:96,500.00$ MAYOR:96,500.00$ COUNCIL:96,500.00$ 14 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ AMI <= 65% ELIGIBLE:86,923.00$ CRC:86,923.00$ MAYOR:86,923.00$ COUNCIL:86,923.00$ 15 Fourth Street Clinic REQUEST:91,352.00$ ELIGIBLE:91,352.00$ CRC:91,352.00$ MAYOR:91,352.00$ COUNCIL:91,352.00$ Access to Health Services The Program will offer services to West side communities hit hard by COVID-19 which include expanding afterschool programming for youth, helping residents apply for household assistance, and offering weekly English courses to aid adults in their education and career advancement. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide intervention to young children ages 2-5 who need additional support beyond their outpatient therapy services to address the mental health crisis exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The Program will provide increased access to mental health services to low income, uninsured adults who are or have experienced homelessness to address needs, many of which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide improved access to healthcare by assisting individuals with COVID-19 detection and mitigation, and medical service coordination in established homeless resource centers. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The Program will provide direct support to individuals with mental health conditions, addiction, and other behavioral challenges that could impact housing stability which has been exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Healthcare Access Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) 81.17 Hartland Education Pathways 80.33 AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, and program supplies Access to Mental Health Services Expanded Educational Opportunities 80.17 Integrated Behavioral Healthcare 79.33 Therapeutic Preschool Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) 81.17 Salaries and benefits individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salaries and benefits individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salaries, fringe costs, fringe benefits, and supplies Salary and benefits individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated November 14, 2023 Page 3 TOTAL UNALLOCATED FUNDING: 200,000.00$ COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category 16 Disability Law Center REQUEST:40,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:34,960.00$ CRC:34,960.00$ MAYOR:34,960.00$ COUNCIL:34,960.00$ 17 Volunteers of America REQUEST:99,605.00$ ELIGIBLE:99,605.00$ CRC:99,605.00$ MAYOR:99,605.00$ COUNCIL:99,605.00$ 18 International Rescue Committee REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:86,334.51$ CRC:86,334.51$ MAYOR:86,334.51$ COUNCIL:86,334.51$ 19 Asian Association of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:92,791.00$ CRC:92,791.00$ MAYOR:92,791.00$ COUNCIL:92,791.00$ 20 Asian Association of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:93,010.00$ CRC:93,010.00$ MAYOR:93,010.00$ COUNCIL:93,010.00$ Mitigating the Digital Divide Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Rental and utility assistance, salaries, wages, and fringe benefits Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention The program will provide individualized advocacy, technical assistance in self-advocacy, information about legal rights, and training to children with disabilities and their families to prevent academic regression from COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Funding will go towards meetings the behavioral health needs of youth ages 15-22, alleviating the behavioral health impacts of COVID-19 by providing clinical services such as crisis intervention, counseling etc. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide linguistically accessible, culturally relevant technology access, training, and support to refugees and new Americans disproportionately impacted by the digital divide as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Specifically, applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide treatment services to the refugee and immigrant communities who are experiencing behavioral health and/or substance use disorders that have been exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will assist city residents who do not meet the eligibility requirements for our other housing grants with rental assistance who have experienced hardships due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream.76.00 AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies refugees and immigrants, and/or victims of human trafficking; AMI <= 65% 79.17 Youth Clinician 77.50 AMI <= 65% Salary and fringe youth experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salary, fringe benefits, and program supplies Disability Law Center Digital Inclusion 77.33 Behavioral Health Support Rental Assistance 76.83 Salaries, wages, and fringe refugees and immigrants, and/or victims of human trafficking; AMI <= 65% Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated November 14, 2023 Page 4 TOTAL UNALLOCATED FUNDING: 200,000.00$ COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category 21 Friends of Switchpoint REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:80,000.00$ CRC:80,000.00$ MAYOR:80,000.00$ COUNCIL:80,000.00$ 22 University of Utah College of Education REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:100,000.00$ 23 Boys & Girls Club of GSL REQUEST:100,000.00$ AMI <= 65% ELIGIBLE:75,043.57$ CRC:54,198.09$ MAYOR:54,198.09$ COUNCIL:54,198.09$ 24 REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 25 Guadalupe Education Center Programs REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ The program will increase overall student attendance in school and participation in the After School program by providing bus services from home to school and home from the After School program to provide academic support and prevent regression from COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Expanded Educational Opportunities Expanded Educational Opportunities 74.50 Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies Other The Point at Fairpark The program will provide case management to individuals who have faced barriers and became displaced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. 76.00 Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention 75.83 AMI <= 65% Expanding Mental Health Systems of Support Across Ten Salt Lake City School District Title I Elementary and Middle Schools Title 1 students, teachers, and administrators Employee wages and benefits Guadalupe Early Learning Center Programs Transportation 74.00 Academic Success & Career Readiness 75.00 Expanded Educational Opportunities The program funds a staff position providing TA for school mental health teams to address mental health needs made worse by COVID-19 in Title I elementary and secondary schools in Salt Lake City School District. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide academic remediation and career readiness programming for youth to prevent academic regression due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide financial education, one-on-one coaching, and community connections to help individuals acquire the financial skills and behaviors needed for taking control of their finances, decreasing dependence on public assistance, increasing net worth through savings and asset building, and achieving financial self-sufficiency to combat economic struggles due to COVID- 19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. AMI > 80% Salaries and benefits Salary and fringe individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, benefits, vehicle expenses, and program supplies/equipment Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. dba NeighborWorks Financial Success Programs: Financial Education and Coaching Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated November 14, 2023 Page 5 TOTAL UNALLOCATED FUNDING: 200,000.00$ COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category 26 Family Support Center REQUEST:50,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:50,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 27 Suazo Business Center REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 28 The INN Between REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:70,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 29 Community Health Centers REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 30 Guadalupe Education Center Programs REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:73,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ The program will provide individual therapy sessions to uninsured individuals not capable of affording services, fund and support Clinical staff with necessary training and certifications, and expand 2-3 more community and group therapy classes each quarter to address mental health struggles exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide beginning, intermediate, and advanced business training, one-on-one business advising, business development training, and a microloan program providing long-term support for low-to-moderate-income minority entrepreneurs and professionals throughout Salt Lake City. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide medical housing to homeless adults from Salt Lake City who are medically compromised in some way and disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide increased access to essential and vital mental healthcare services where cost is a barrier to low-income and uninsured residents of Salt Lake City disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program help pay construction costs and supply costs for Outdoor STEAM Classroom and salary for a part-time STEAM educator for the outdoor classroom for 2 years to prevent academic regression due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Specifically, applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Healthcare Access Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities Latino/Hispanic and minority business owners; AMI <= 65% 73.83 Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies Supporting Underserved and Low-Income Entrepreneurs in Utah 74.00 Medical Respite Housing & Hospice for the Homeless 73.67 AMI <= 65% Salaries and workshops Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Other Construction costs, salary and benefits Mental Health Access 72.17 Education Programs - Outdoor Class 72.17 AMI <= 65% Salary and benefits AMI > 80% Salaries and benefits individuals with serious health conditions experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 40% Mental Health and Clinical Family Counseling Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated November 14, 2023 Page 6 TOTAL UNALLOCATED FUNDING: 200,000.00$ COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category 31 Project Connection Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 32 Alliance House, Inc.REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 33 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,923.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 34 Create Reel Change DBA Mental Healthy F.i.T.REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:25,500.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 35 Project Connection Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ The program will support children ages 7-17 with mental health diagnosis, an opportunity to build relationships, experience their community, connect with nature, and engage in service to combat negative effects of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad in providing nonspecific services to students. The program will provide psychosocial supports and other targeted case management services to low-income, uninsured individuals who have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide mental health services by creating a pipeline of licensed psychologists specializing in Infant/Early Childhood Mental Health (IECMH) to treat mental health issues exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will support a series of monthly health community education and awareness events, offering youth workshops to develop youth creativity and conversation to provide support for those disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide social prescribing services that involve health professionals referring patients to support in the community in order to improve their overall well-being from issues brought by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Expanded Educational Opportunities 70.17 69.33 68.67 underserved communities with unique mental health challenges; AMI <= 65% Program development and training supplies Social Prescribing Program Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) AMI <= 65% Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Respite Program Fund Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) children 0-6 who have suffered childhood trauma; AMI <= 65% Employee wages, program supplies and fees Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) individuals with medical diagnosis; AMI <= 40% Access to Alliance House Salaries and fringe benefits 70.00 Workforce Development Intern Program Mental Health Assistance 69.50 AMI <= 65% Program and training supplies Community Mental Health Awareness and Elevation Salaries and program support Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated November 14, 2023 Page 7 TOTAL UNALLOCATED FUNDING: 200,000.00$ COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) Service Category 36 The Leonardo REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 37 Catholic Community Services of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 38 Fit to Recover REQUEST:96,275.00$ ELIGIBLE:96,275.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 39 UAACC Charitable Foundation REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:-$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 40 Salt Lake Acting Company REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:34,583.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ REQUESTS:3,833,313.40$ ELIGIBLE REQUESTS:3,317,126.48$ CRC:2,000,000.00$ MAYOR:2,000,000.00$ COUNCIL:1,800,000.00$ TOTAL RECOMMENDATIONS/ALLOCATIONS The program will provide access to digital literacy training to recently arrived refugees. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will increase support to treatment centers, create new programs to address youth prevention, and further enhance existing programs and internships to support mental health issues due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide resources and support for Black entrepreneurs that reside in Salt Lake City to rebuild following the impacts of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide children's musical performances to low-income K-2 Title I students and their teachers to engage students and lessen negative effects of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Other Other Clarification was requested from applicants during and after Committee scoring regarding details related to proposal eligibility. Responses from applicants were reviewed to determine eligibility status. Some proposals were determined to be totally eligible and some partially eligible. Other notes for some proposals note some of these questions. 67.00 Salaries and benefits, program supplies 68.00 68.50 recently resettled refugees; AMI <= 40% Employee salary and benefits, program supplies mental health and substance misuse treatment communities; AMI <= 80% Afterschool Tech Program Mitigating the Digital Divide The program would support the Afterschool Tech Program which counters the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic with on-site, experiential afterschool learning concluding with a community-based project that addresses a real-world problem. ELIGIBILE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Program and training supplies Digital Literacy for Refugees Employee salary and benefits, program supplies AMI <= 65% Title I Arts Education Program 57.67 minority children from ages 5 to 9; AMI <= 65% Program supplies and operation costs Supporting Utah's Black Community 65.50 Expanded Educational Opportunities FTR Pillars of Mental Health Minority business professionals; AMI <= 80% Attachment 1 - Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grant Awards Funding Log Last Updated November 14, 2023 Page 8 Mayor’s Recommendation to Use $200,000 from Withdrawn Applications in the Local Nonprofit Direct Assistance Grants Program Organization Application #Recommended Funding Change in $Notes First Step House #3 Case Management $60,500 +$9,200 The Mayor recommended remaining funding from excess $200,000 not allocated to other applications go towards first applicant not receiving their full amount ask. Boys & Girls Club of GSL #23 Academic Success & Career Readiness $75,000 +$20,800 The Mayor recommended remaining funding from excess $200,000 not allocated towards unfunded applications go towards cutoff application funded below eligible ask. Guadalupe Education Center Programs #25 Guadalupe Early Learning Center Programs Transportation $100,000 +$100,000 The Mayor recommended funding at full eligible ask. The INN Between #28 Medical Respite Housing & Hospice for the Homeless $70,000 +$70,000 The Mayor recommended funding at full eligible ask. TOTAL $200,000 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 20, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Tony Milner, Director, Housing Stability Division Jack Markman, Community Development Grant Specialist __________________________ SUBJECT: Community and Neighborhoods Department, Community Recovery Assistance Grant Program, Community Recovery Committee Recommendations for Allocation STAFF CONTACT: Tony Milner, 801-535-6168, tony.milner@slcgov.com Jack Markman, 801-535-7762 jack.markman@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Review the Community Recovery Committee’s (CRC) funding recommendations of twenty-three (23) applicants for the allocation of $2,000,000 through Community and Neighborhoods Department (CAN), Community Recovery Assistance Grants (CRAG). Approve funds in accordance with City Code 2.20.040, at the Council’s discretion. BUDGET IMPACT: Distribution of $2M in funding allocated to CAN as American Rescue Plan Act funds in April 2022, and reallocated as general funds in May 2023. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City received $85.4M from the US Department of the Treasury through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Of this total award, City Council set aside $4M to establish a community grant program to help Salt Lake City recover from the effects of COVID-19 (City Code 2.20.040, passed in April 2022) and tasked the respective departments of Economic Development (DED) and Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) to deploy and administer $2M each. Lisa Shaffer (Sep 21, 2023 10:39 MDT)09/21/2023 09/21/2023 For the $2M in funds administered by CAN, a publicly noticed, open competitive application period ran from September 1-30, 2022, and this portion of funds received forty (40) applications. The Community Recovery Committee (CRC), created through City Code 2.20.040 and composed of current members of other City boards and commissions, reviewed these applications between February and mid-April 2023. During their seven (7) meetings, the CRC scored and put forth their recommendations for twenty-three (23) applicants. Attached is Exhibit B with the funding recommendations. In May of 2023, Council transferred $19.8M of the awarded ARPA funds, which included the $2M for the CAN CRAG towards City revenue replacement general funds. Finance has confirmed that these funds are no longer American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. Note: City Code 2.20.040 references “Rescue Plan community grant program funds,” and at the time of the open application process and CRC recommendations, these funds adhered to ARPA regulations. The administration of these general funds will continue to align with ARPA regulations as much as possible, along with any additional guidance provided by Council. Award Eligibility Requirements: CAN worked closely with Finance to determine eligibility requirements. The requirements for funding eligibility are as follows: ●A community grant application will not exceed $100,000. Awards will not be greater than $100,000 or less than $30,000. ●Any community grant application must focus on one of the six (6) categories, as outlined in City Code 2.20.040(b): i.Retraining displaced workers ii.Legal or other assistance for eviction prevention or rent relief iii.Expanding educational opportunities iv.Mitigating the digital divide v. Supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 vi. Providing access to healthcare services, including mental health support ●Any community grant application must provide a direct service to Salt Lake City residents that have been impacted or disproportionately impacted by COVID-19.. ●Any community grant application must abide by all relevant federal, state, and city activity standards and regulations, and any subsequent changes made while applying to the same. Scoring: Eligible applicants were scored on a base-100 scale with the following breakdown: ●One-third of the total score was derived from the Admin Score. The highest possible Admin Score was 35 points. Housing Stability staff and Finance staff conducted an initial application review for eligibility and risk (history of administering federal funding, independent audit findings, key staff turnover, etc.). ●Two-thirds of the score was derived from the CRC’s review. The highest possible Committee score was 65 points. CRC members independently scored the applications, by reviewing each application and scoring in a qualitative manner, that determined overall program merit. Staff aggregated and averaged the individual scores for a final application score. Of the forty (40) applications that were received, thirty-one (31) were determined to be for the CAN CRAG program, based on ARPA guidance and the City Code authorizing the use of the funds. Ineligibility factors included insufficient or lack of: COVID recovery-related activities, direct client services, and/or services to Salt Lake City residents. Due to funding availability, the top scored twenty-three (23) applications have been recommended for funding. The recommended applications have been sorted based on their final scores (highest to lowest). Attached to this transmittal is the CRC’s and the Mayor’s list of funding recommendations for consideration of final funding approval by the Council. PUBLIC PROCESS: A notice of available funding was publicly noticed and all CRC meetings were publicly-noticed in accordance with the Open and Public Meetings Act. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Resolution Exhibit B – CAN CRAG Recommended Funding Allocations for Nonprofit Organizations 1 RESOLUTION NO. ________ OF 2023 A resolution adopting funding allocations for the Community and Neighborhoods Department (CAN) Community Recovery Assistance Grant (CRAG) program WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council (the “Council”) appropriated general funds in the amount of $2,000,000 to CAN for the CRAG program to be disbursed to nonprofit organizations; WHEREAS, the Division of Housing Stability publicly noticed and administered a competitive application process to solicit funding requests from nonprofit organizations; WHEREAS, the Community Recovery Committee and Mayor reviewed applications and the Mayor recommends that the Council approve the funding allocations for applicants as described on Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Council does now meet on this _________, 2023 to adopt funding allocations for the CAN CRAG program for nonprofit organizations funds. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. That the Council hereby adopts funding allocations as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. 2. That the Mayor, as the official representative of Salt Lake City, or her designee, is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute the grant documents and any other relevant documents consistent with Exhibit A, and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office, and to act in accordance with their terms. 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 Chytraus Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: ___________________________ ATTEST: _________________________________ CITY RECORDER September 12, 2023 2 EXHIBIT B Funding Allocations TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,000,000.00 1 Rape Recovery Center REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 2 Wasatch Community Gardens REQUEST:76,173.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,173.00$ CRC:76,173.00$ MAYOR:76,173.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 3 First Step House REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:51,322.00$ CRC:51,322.00$ MAYOR:51,322.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 4 First Step House REQUEST:99,908.40$ ELIGIBLE:99,908.40$ CRC:99,908.40$ MAYOR:99,908.40$ COUNCIL:-$ 5 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 6 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 7 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,923.00$ CRC:76,923.00$ MAYOR:76,923.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 8 United Way of SLC REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ Title 1 students The program will provide behavioral health care to individuals who have suffered from sexual violence, a problem that has been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide job training services to women facing or experiencing homelessness, whose existing economic and mental health challenges have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide case management for individuals with mental health challenges, substance use disorders, and increased medical needs who have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Women experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Employee wages, staff wages and benefits Wasatch Community Gardens Rose Park Charter School 82.33 82.17 82.00 Outpatient Clinical Services M. Lynn Bennion School 82.50 Program and training supplies AMI <= 65% Salaries, fringe costs, fringe benefits, and supplies Title 1 students Demographics To Be Served/Use of Funds SCORING Clinical Therapy Services for Survivors of Sexual Violence Case Management Restorative Care Pathways Bryant Middle School Title 1 students Salaries, program supplies, and training Salaries, wages, and fringe benefits PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME REQUEST/RECOMMENDED Combined Admin & CRC Score (100 max) 87.17 85.00 83.00 82.50 Service Category The program will provide behavioral health treatment for individuals experiencing homelessness alongside substance use disorders and mental illness. This service helped bridge service gaps for the homeless population amidst the challenges posed by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend SLCSE Bryant Middle School by engaging the community, building out a well-being room and expanding experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT individuals with substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and histories of homelessness, incarceration, and unstable employment; AMI <= 40% Salaries and fringe benefits individuals with substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and recurrent homelessness; AMI <= 40% sexual assault survivors; unhoused; AMI <= 65% Staffing salaries and benefits Salaries, grants, supplies, and training Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Retraining Displaced Workers Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities Expanded Educational Opportunities Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities COMMUNITY RECOVERY ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR NONPROFITS The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend SLCSE M. Lynn Bennion Elementary School by employing the Playworks program, building out a well-being room and expanding experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide outpatient clinical services to enhance the emotional well-being of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their families to address the mental health crisis exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide expanded educational opportunities for youth who attend Rose Park Charter School by engaging the community, enhancing after-school programs, building out a well-being room, and promoting experiential learning. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Exhibit B 9 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah REQUEST:80,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:80,000.00$ CRC:80,000.00$ MAYOR:80,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 10 Odyssey House REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 11 The Road Home REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 12 The Road Home REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 13 University Neighborhood Partners REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:96,500.00$ CRC:96,500.00$ MAYOR:96,500.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 14 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:86,923.00$ CRC:86,923.00$ MAYOR:86,923.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 15 Fourth Street Clinic REQUEST:91,352.00$ ELIGIBLE:91,352.00$ CRC:91,352.00$ MAYOR:91,352.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 16 Disability Law Center REQUEST:40,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:34,960.00$ CRC:34,960.00$ MAYOR:34,960.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 17 Volunteers of America REQUEST:99,605.00$ ELIGIBLE:99,605.00$ CRC:99,605.00$ MAYOR:99,605.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 18 International Rescue Committee REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:86,334.51$ CRC:86,334.51$ MAYOR:86,334.51$ COUNCIL:-$ 81.17 81.20 individuals with substance use disorders, mental illness, and a history of homelessness; AMI <= 40% Harm reduction kits, staff wages, and program supplies individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salaries and benefits 81.17 Hartland Education Pathways 80.33 individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salaries and benefits AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, and program supplies Access to Mental Health Services Expanded Educational Opportunities 80.17 Integrated Behavioral Healthcare 79.33 AMI <= 65% Salaries, fringe costs, fringe benefits, and supplies individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salary and benefits Therapeutic Preschool Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) 79.17 Youth Clinician 77.50 AMI <= 65% Salary and fringe youth experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salary, fringe benefits, and program supplies Disability Law Center Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) 77.33 AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies Healthcare Access Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Digital Inclusion One-to-One Youth Mentoring Harm Reduction & Outreach Program Access to Health Services The Program will offer services to West side communities hit hard by COVID-19 which include expanding afterschool programming for youth, helping residents apply for household assistance, and offering weekly English courses to aid adults in their education and career advancement. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide intervention to young children ages 2-5 who need additional support beyond their outpatient therapy services to address the mental health crisis exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The Program will provide increased access to mental health services to low income, uninsured adults who are or have experienced homelessness to address needs, many of which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide individualized advocacy, technical assistance in self-advocacy, information about legal rights, and training to children with disabilities and their families to prevent academic regression from COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Funding will go towards meetings the behavioral health needs of youth ages 15-22, alleviating the behavioral health impacts of COVID-19 by providing clinical services such as crisis intervention, counseling etc. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide linguistically accessible, culturally relevant technology access, training, and support to refugees and new Americans disproportionately impacted by the digital divide as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Specifically, applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. 81.83 underserved youth; AMI <= 65% Employee salaries and benefits Expanded Educational Opportunities Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Mitigating the Digital Divide The program will provide professional development to volunteers who would bring developmental relationships to underserved youth in Salt Lake City. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The Program will provide outreach events, distribution and expansion of harm reduction kits, and healthcare appointments for individuals experiencing homelessness who have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide improved access to healthcare by assisting individuals with COVID-19 detection and mitigation, and medical service coordination in established homeless resource centers. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The Program will provide direct support to individuals with mental health conditions, addiction, and other behavioral challenges that could impact housing stability which has been exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. 19 Asian Association of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:92,791.00$ CRC:92,791.00$ MAYOR:92,791.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 20 Asian Association of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:93,010.00$ CRC:93,010.00$ MAYOR:93,010.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 21 Friends of Switchpoint REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:80,000.00$ CRC:80,000.00$ MAYOR:80,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 22 University of Utah College of Education REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:100,000.00$ MAYOR:100,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ 23 Boys & Girls Club of GSL REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:75,043.57$ CRC:54,198.09$ MAYOR:54,198.09$ COUNCIL:-$ 24 Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. dba NeighborWorks REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 25 Guadalupe Education Center Programs REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 26 Family Support Center REQUEST:50,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:50,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 27 Suazo Business Center REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 28 The INN Between REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:70,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ Behavioral Health Support Rental Assistance 76.83 76.00 refugees and immigrants, and/or victims of human trafficking; AMI <= 65% Salaries, wages, and fringe refugees and immigrants, and/or victims of human trafficking; AMI <= 65% AMI > 80% Salaries and benefits Salaries and benefits 75.83 Title 1 students, teachers, and administrators Employee wages and benefits Guadalupe Early Learning Center Programs Transportation 74.00 Academic Success & Career Readiness 75.00 AMI <= 65% Salary, wages, benefits, vehicle expenses, and program supplies/equipment Expanded Educational Opportunities The program funds a staff position providing TA for school mental health teams to address mental health needs made worse by COVID-19 in Title I elementary and secondary schools in Salt Lake City School District. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide academic remediation and career readiness programming for youth to prevent academic regression due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide financial education, one-on-one coaching, and community connections to help individuals acquire the financial skills and behaviors needed for taking control of their finances, decreasing dependence on public assistance, increasing net worth through savings and asset building, and achieving financial self-sufficiency to combat economic struggles due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. Supporting Underserved and Low-Income Entrepreneurs in Utah Mental Health and Clinical Family Counseling 74.00 Medical Respite Housing & Hospice for the Homeless 73.67 AMI <= 65% Salaries and workshops 76.00 individuals experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 65% Salary and fringe Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention Other Rental and utility assistance, salaries, wages, and fringe benefits Rental Assistance/Eviction Prevention The Point at Fairpark The program will provide treatment services to the refugee and immigrant communities who are experiencing behavioral health and/or substance use disorders that have been exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will assist city residents who do not meet the eligibility requirements for our other housing grants with rental assistance who have experienced hardships due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide case management to individuals who have faced barriers and became displaced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Financial Success Programs: Financial Education and Coaching AMI <= 65% Expanding Mental Health Systems of Support Across Ten Salt Lake City School District Title I Elementary and Middle Schools individuals with serious health conditions experiencing homelessness; AMI <= 40% Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Other Healthcare Access Latino/Hispanic and minority business owners; AMI <= 65% 73.83 Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies 74.50 Salary, wages, benefits, and program supplies Expanded Educational Opportunities Expanded Educational Opportunities Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) The program will increase overall student attendance in school and participation in the After School program by providing bus services from home to school and home from the After School program to provide academic support and prevent regression from COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide individual therapy sessions to uninsured individuals not capable of affording services, fund and support Clinical staff with necessary training and certifications, and expand 2-3 more community and group therapy classes each quarter to address mental health struggles exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide beginning, intermediate, and advanced business training, one-on-one business advising, business development training, and a microloan program providing long-term support for low-to-moderate-income minority entrepreneurs and professionals throughout Salt Lake City. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide medical housing to homeless adults from Salt Lake City who are medically compromised in some way and disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. 29 Community Health Centers REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 30 Guadalupe Education Center Programs REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:73,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 31 Project Connection Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 32 Alliance House, Inc.REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 33 The Children's Center Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:76,923.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 34 Create Reel Change DBA Mental Healthy F.i.T.REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:25,500.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 35 Project Connection Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:90,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 36 The Leonardo REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 37 Catholic Community Services of Utah REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:100,000.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 38 Fit to Recover REQUEST:96,275.00$ ELIGIBLE:96,275.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ Workforce Development Intern Program Mental Health Assistance 69.50 AMI <= 65% Program and training supplies Mental Health Access 72.17 Education Programs - Outdoor Class 72.17 AMI <= 65% Salary and benefits AMI > 80% Expanded Educational Opportunities Community Mental Health Awareness and Elevation FTR Pillars of Mental Health Salaries and program support Construction costs, salary and benefits Respite Program Fund Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) children 0-6 who have suffered childhood trauma; AMI <= 65% Employee wages, program supplies and fees Digital Literacy for Refugees Employee salary and benefits, program supplies Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) AMI <= 65% individuals with medical diagnosis; AMI <= 40% Access to Alliance House Salaries and fringe benefits 70.00 The program would support the Afterschool Tech Program which counters the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic with on-site, experiential afterschool learning concluding with a community-based project that addresses a real-world problem. ELIGIBILE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Expanded Educational Opportunities Expanded Educational Opportunities AMI <= 65% Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) 70.17 69.33 67.00 Salaries and benefits, program supplies 68.00 68.67 68.50 recently resettled refugees; AMI <= 40% Employee salary and benefits, program supplies underserved communities with unique mental health challenges; AMI <= 65% Program development and training supplies mental health and substance misuse treatment communities; AMI <= 80% Afterschool Tech Program Social Prescribing Program Mitigating the Digital Divide Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) Healthcare Access (Mental Health Assistance) The program will provide access to digital literacy training to recently arrived refugees. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will increase support to treatment centers, create new programs to address youth prevention, and further enhance existing programs and internships to support mental health issues due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide increased access to essential and vital mental healthcare services where cost is a barrier to low-income and uninsured residents of Salt Lake City disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program help pay construction costs and supply costs for Outdoor STEAM Classroom and salary for a part-time STEAM educator for the outdoor classroom for 2 years to prevent academic regression due to COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Specifically, applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will support children ages 7-17 with mental health diagnosis, an opportunity to build relationships, experience their community, connect with nature, and engage in service to combat negative effects of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was very broad in providing nonspecific services to students. The program will provide psychosocial supports and other targeted case management services to low-income, uninsured individuals who have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: All costs requested by applicant were determined to be eligible. The program will provide mental health services by creating a pipeline of licensed psychologists specializing in Infant/Early Childhood Mental Health (IECMH) to treat mental health issues exacerbated by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will support a series of monthly health community education and awareness events, offering youth workshops to develop youth creativity and conversation to provide support for those disproportionally affected by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. The program will provide social prescribing services that involve health professionals referring patients to support in the community in order to improve their overall well-being from issues brought by COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. 39 UAACC Charitable Foundation REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:-$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ 40 Salt Lake Acting Company REQUEST:100,000.00$ ELIGIBLE:34,583.00$ CRC:-$ MAYOR:-$ COUNCIL:-$ REQUESTS:3,833,313.40$ ELIGIBLE REQUESTS:3,317,126.48$ CRC:2,000,000.00$ MAYOR:2,000,000.00$ COUNCIL:-$ Title I Arts Education Program 57.67 minority children from ages 5 to 9; AMI <= 65% Program supplies and operation costs Supporting Utah's Black Community 65.50 Minority business professionals; AMI <= 80% Program and training supplies Clarification was requested from applicants during and after Committee scoring regarding details related to proposal eligibility. Responses from applicants were reviewed to determine eligibility status. Some proposals were determined to be totally eligible and some partially eligible. Other notes for some proposals note some of these questions. Other Other TOTAL RECOMMENDATIONS/ALLOCATIONS The program will provide resources and support for Black entrepreneurs that reside in Salt Lake City to rebuild following the impacts of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: This proposal was broad and may be providing general economic development. The program will provide children's musical performances to low-income K-2 Title I students and their teachers to engage students and lessen negative effects of COVID-19. ELIGIBLE: Some costs were determined to be ineligible. Applicant requested operational/revenue replacement costs, which are outside the scope of this funding stream. Page | 1 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst DATE:November 14, 2023 RE: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Local Business Direct Assistance Grant Awards Final Phase ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE In April 2022 as part of Budget Amendment #4 of FY2022, the Council approved one-time $2 million from ARPA for local business assistance grant awards managed by the Economic Development Department that the department recommended distributing in two phases. On March 7, 2023, the Council approved $1,017,397 for 42 grant awards to local businesses. On October 3, the Council approved $500,000 for seven passthrough grant awards to local nonprofits that provide services to local businesses. Note the Council also approved a separate one-time $2 million from ARPA for local nonprofit direct assistance grant awards managed by the Community and Neighborhood Department (CAN) which has separate briefings and reports. This memo covers the final phase of the business assistance grants. The Economic Development Department and the Community Recovery Committee recommend that the remaining $481,400 of ARPA grant awards go to 15 small local businesses as shown in the Attachment 1 - Funding Log. 11 of the 15 applicants also applied during the first phase. The Mayor made no changes to the Committee’s funding recommendations. The Administration reviewed all applications for eligibility and compliance with federal ARPA guidance. The recommended award amounts are calculated by multiplying the requested funding by the average committee score. For example, the highest scoring application requested $50,000 and received an average score of 95.86 which is $50,000 x 95.86% = $43,041. The final funding recommended is $43,000 because of rounding to the nearest $100 per the Council’s policy guidance and best practices according to the Finance Department. Using this formula, the 15th application would be recommended to receive $40,100 but the advisory committee recommended a lower amount off $8,800 to stay within the total $481,400 remaining for this final phase of grant awards. The Council has final decision-making authority over the grant awards including the dollar amounts and uses. See the “Additional Information” section for more on applications, award limits, scoring, and clarifications about the recommended funding log. Goal of the briefing: Review the recommended grant awards, identify questions and potential modifications to the awards and/or process, and determine whether the Council is comfortable scheduling an adoption vote. Project Timeline: 1st Briefing: November 14, 2023 2nd Briefing: December 5, 2023 (if needed) Potential Final Vote: December 5 or 12, 2023 Page | 2 At Least One Award in Each Council District The advisory committee interpreted the ordinance requirement of geographic equity to mean there should be at least one grant award to a local business in each Council District. The highest scoring applicant from District Six (h2blow Salt Lake City) is recommended to receive $8,800 which is less than the eligible funding because that’s all the funding remaining after awards to higher scored applicants. There are six applicants that scored higher but are not recommended for funding because of the committee’s geographic equity policy approach. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Questions about Recommended Grant Awards – Does the Council have any questions about the 15 recommended local business direct assistance grant awards? 2. Potential Contingency for Unused Funds – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to provide a funding contingency in case an applicant(s) is unable to fully use the grant award. For example, the funding could be reallocated to the next highest scoring application moving down the funding log until all available funding is spent. However, it’s unclear whether the multiple different phases with different scores and funding logs would be consolidated or kept separate in this potential circumstance. Alternatively, the Council could choose to award any unused funding to one or more specified applications. ADDITIONIAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applications: 116 applications were submitted for the final phase. 22 applications were not scored by the Committee such as when an application was deemed ineligible for reasons such as the applicant was located outside of city limits, did not begin operations within the federal time requirements (been in business on or before January 1, 2020), the application was incomplete, or late. 11 of the 15 applicants recommended for funding also applied during the first phase. Award Limits: The maximum award is $100,000 for any of the ARPA assistance grants per City Code Chapter 2.20.040(A) (see Attachment 2). There is no minimum award set in ordinance. The City uses minimum awards for other programs such as annual grants from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and the Capital Improvement Program or CIP (See policy question #3). Grant recipients must submit documentation for reimbursements and file quarterly reports with the City. Some local businesses could be ineligible depending on the minimum award amount. Scoring: Eligible applications were scored on a scale of zero to 100 with higher scores being better. Identifying information such as names and addresses were removed from applications before the Community Recovery Committee reviewed and scored them. This was done to improve the integrity of the process. See Attachment 3 for a summary list of all 94 eligible local business applications ordered from highest to lowest combined score. The attachment shows average scores in the fourth column which is an average of all Committee member’s scores who ranked the application. Funding Recommendations: The 15 local business applicants are recommended to receive a grant award based on a sliding scale rather than the full eligible funding amount. The Administration provided this example: “if an applicant had an eligible funding amount of $10,000 and received an average Committee score of 90.0, then their final funding amount would be $9,000.” The sliding scale approach results in less funding to applicants but spreads the limited ARPA dollars to more applicants. Funding Log (Attachment 1): The log shows the 15 local businesses recommended for funding. 11 of the 15 applicants also applied during the first phase. Note that when an application is listed as “Received other assistance: None” this means the local business received zero financial assistance from any level of government. The columns moving from left to right are: recommended local business number one through 15, local business name, Council District, amount of funding the local business requested, amount of requested funding that is eligible (must show a proven loss and other ARPA requirements), the Community Recovery Committee’s recommended funding rounded to the nearest $100, and the category of AB – Arts and Artisan Businesses, SB – Small Business, and TTH – Tourism, Travel, or Hospitality. Several acronyms are spelled out at the end. Page | 3 Spending Deadlines: Under federal guidelines ARPA funds must be obligated by the end of calendar year 2024 and must be fully spent by the end of calendar year 2026. City Code Chapter 2.20.050 (see Attachment 2) sets an earlier spending deadline of December 31, 2024, to provide public benefits at a faster pace. Community Recovery Committee (See Attachment 2 for the ordinance) In April 2022, the Council enacted Chapter 2.20 of Salt Lake City Code creating the time-limited Community Recovery Committee as an official City board. Section 2.20.060 of the ordinance identifies a sunset for the Committee once all the ARPA program funds are expended or the federal spending deadline has passed. The Committee reviews applications and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for the ARPA local business and nonprofit assistance grants. The Committee has seven or nine members who also serve on other City boards or committees. Grant Categories (See Attachment 2 for the ordinance) No specific categories are identified for the business assistance grants. These grants are focused on small and local businesses, tourism, travel, or hospitality, and support for artists and artisan businesses. A business must first demonstrate an economic and/or operational hardship caused by the pandemic, and then propose an ARPA eligible use for the grant funds. Specific categories are identified for the nonprofit assistance grants which are: “offering services to retrain displaced workers; providing legal or other assistance for evictions or rent relief; expanding educational opportunities; deploying resources to mitigate the digital divide; supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 including childcare or after school programs; and providing access to healthcare services including mental health support.” (2.20.040(A)) Note nonprofits may submit applications for programs not listed above. ATTACHMENTS 1. Local Business Direct Assistance ARPA Grant Awards Final Phase Funding Log 2. Community Recovery Committee Chapter 2.20 of Salt Lake City Code 3. Summary List of Eligible Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Committee Score ACRONYMS (from this staff report and Attachment 1 Funding Log) AB – Arts and Artisan Businesses ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act BIPOC – Black, Indigenous, and People of Color CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department CCL – Child Care Licensing CIP – Capital Improvement Program EIDL – Economic Injury Disaster Loan FY – Fiscal Year HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department IRC – International Rescue Committee LLC – Limited Liability Company PPP – Federal Paycheck Protection Program SB – Small Business SBDC – Utah Small Business Development Center TBD – To De Determined TTH – Tourism, Travel, or Hospitality #BUSINESS APPLICANT DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score - Rounded to Nearest $100)CATEGORY 1 Nico's Restaurant LLC (83628)1 $50,000 $44,900 $43,000.00 TTH 2 Wasatch Theatre Company of Salt Lake County (90225)2 $30,000 $30,000 $27,000.00 AB 3 L.L. Hair & Beauty (59837)7 $38,490 $38,490 $34,400.00 SB 4 Monsoon Creative LLC (85179)2 $32,978 $32,978 $29,200.00 AB 5 Break Bread Barber Co LLC (62514)3 $50,000 $24,000 $21,300.00 SB Beauty salon located in Sugarhouse. Type of Business: Salon (Sole Proprietor) DisproportionatelyImpacted: 100% women-owned Use of funds: Wages, benefits, rent, operating supplies Received other assistance: PPP - $7.4k Mexican restaurant on the Westside of SLC. Type of Business: Mexican restaurant (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: 100% BIPOC-owned Use of funds: Wages, equipment/supplies, marketing Received other assistance: None SLC-based professional artist and muralist that has created over 20 public murals across the state of Utah. Type of Business: Professional Artist/Muralist (Home-based & Sole Proprietor) DisproportionatelyImpacted: None Use of funds: Rent, operating supplies, transporation expenses Received other assistance: None Barber shop on westside of SLC. Type of Business: Barber shop (Sole proprietor) DisproportionatelyImpacted: 100% BIPOC-owned Use of funds: Rent, COVID prevention measures, staff training, marketing, operating supplies. Received other assistance: None Business is a performing arts organization focused on theatre that has been in operation since 1997. Type of Business: Performing arts theatre (Sole Proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: None Use of funds: Wages, artist stipends Received other assistance: None Attachment 1 - Local Business Direct Assistance ARPA Grant Awards Final Phase Funding Log Last Updated October 10, 2023 Page 1 #BUSINESS APPLICANT DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score - Rounded to Nearest $100)CATEGORY 6 Mid City Salon (60352)4 $50,000 $50,000 $44,100.00 SB 7 Ignite Studios (85016)5 $27,500 $27,500 $24,000.00 AB 8 Salt Lake Bicycle Tours LLC (61219)4 $30,000 $30,000 $25,700.00 TTH 9 Reflective Art Studio (62957)5 $50,000 $46,000 $39,300.00 AB 10 Matrixx Massage Inc (63362)4 $50,000 $50,000 $42,100.00 SB Business makes art objects to sell in galleries and also teaches glass/painting workshops. Type of Business: Art studio (Sole proprietor) DisproportionatelyImpacted: 100% women-owned Use of funds: Rent, wages, operating supplies, marketing Received other assistance: PPP - $15.8k Business has been open for the last 30 years and offers the community professional therapeutic massages, steam room, infrared sauna, ice plunge, and meditation cave. Type of Business: Massage spa (Sole proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: 100% women & BIPOC-owned Use of funds: Wages, employee retention, apprenticeship program Received other assistance: PPP- $52k, EIDL - $351k Hair and nail salon in downtown SLC. Type of Business: Hair and nail salon (Sole proprietor) DisproportionatelyImpacted: 100% women-owned Use of funds: Rent, wages Received other assistance: Zoom Grant - $35k, EIDL - $1.5k Business is a tour operator giving the highest quality bike tours, walking tours, & food tours. Business gives customers an engaging experience, providing them a rich history of Salt Lake, and delivered in a contemporary context. Type of Business: SLC tour operator (Home-based & Sole proprietor) Disproportionately Impacted: None Use of funds: Wages, insurance, marketing, equipment Received other assistance: PPP - $4.4k, EIDL - $4k Business offers recording space and services for various audio projects, film projects, and also serves as an event space. Type of Business: Film & audio recording studio, event space Disproportionately Impacted: 100% women-owned Use of funds: Utilities, equipment, marketing Received other assistance: None Attachment 1 - Local Business Direct Assistance ARPA Grant Awards Final Phase Funding Log Last Updated October 10, 2023 Page 2 #BUSINESS APPLICANT DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score - Rounded to Nearest $100)CATEGORY 11 Tankinz Noodle Mfg. LLC (61142)2 $50,000 $50,000 $42,000.00 SB 12 Pacific Seas Restaurant (100185)2 $50,000 $50,000 $42,000.00 TTH 13 Marblecast Products (87904)2 $30,000 $30,000 $25,100.00 AB $50,000 $40,000 14 Pasifika First Fridays (63526)2 $50,000 $40,000 $33,400.00 AB Business offers custom statue making for buyers worldwide. Included is the art of sculpting in clay original models, 3D sculpting and 3D printing services, rubber mold building, casting using signature white bonded marble material and in real bronze. Type of Business:Statue maker DisproportionatelyImpacted: None Use of funds: Marketing, employee retention, operating supplies Received other assistance: SLC Emergency Loan Program - $20k, EIDL - $155k, PPP - $11.2k Business has been operating in Salt Lake City since 2004 and produces fortune cookies & fresh pasta for local Asian restaurants, as well as providing wonton, egg roll, and pot sticker skins. Type of Business: Food producer DisproportionatelyImpacted: None Use of funds: Wages, rent, operating supplies Received other assistance: Federal loans - $150k, Federal grant - $7.5k Family-owned business that serves authentic Polynesian cuisine from the Islands of the Pacific, and has been in business for over 30 years. Type of Business: Polynesian restaurant Disproportionately Impacted: 100% BIPOC-owned Use of funds: Operating supplies, equipment, marketing Received other assistance: PPP - $148.9k, EIDL - $150k, Utah Governor's Loan - $5k, Salt Lake Chamber grant - $5k Business highlights, celebrates, and showcases local Pacific Islander talent every first Friday of the month, through a roving cultural festival focused on in-person gatherings, experiences, & pop ups. Type of Business: Arts & Culture Events DisproportionatelyImpacted: 100% women & BIPOC-owned Use of funds: Wages, technical assistance,transportation costs Received other assistance: PPP - $62k Attachment 1 - Local Business Direct Assistance ARPA Grant Awards Final Phase Funding Log Last Updated October 10, 2023 Page 3 #BUSINESS APPLICANT DISTRICT 2022-2024 REQUESTED FUNDING 2022-2024 ELIGIBLE FUNDING (Proven Loss) 2022-2024 CRC RECOMMENDATION (% Based on Score - Rounded to Nearest $100)CATEGORY 15 H2blow Salt Lake City, LLC (63345)6 $50,000 $50,000 $8,800.00 SB TOTAL:$638,968.00 $593,868.00 $481,400.00 ACRONYMS AB - Arts and Artisan Businesses BIPOC - Black, Indigenous, and People of Color CRC - Community Recovery Committee EIDL - Economic Injury Disaster Loan LLC - Limited Liability Company PPP - Federal Paycheck Protection Program SB - Small Business TTH - Tourism, Travel, or Hospitality Business is a blowdry & beauty bar that offers hair and makeup services to women of all ages. Type of Business: Beauty salon (Sole proprietor) DisproportionatelyImpacted: 100% women-owned Use of funds: Rent, utilities, operating supplies, employee retention, marketing Received other assistance: PPP - $35k *Note: Dollar amount on this last recommended awardee lowered so as to not go over remaining funds of $481,400. Attachment 1 - Local Business Direct Assistance ARPA Grant Awards Final Phase Funding Log Last Updated October 10, 2023 Page 4 2/13/23, 2:29 PM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/1/2 CHAPTER 2.20 COMMUNITY RECOVERY COMMITTEE SECTION: 2.20.010: Purpose 2.20.020: Responsibilities 2.20.030: Membership 2.20.040: Community Grant Program 2.20.050: Minimum Requirements For Community Grant Program Applications 2.20.060: Sunset 2.20.010: PURPOSE: The Community Recovery Committee will assist with and oversee the distribution of certain Rescue Plan funds under the City's community grant program. Consistent with this Chapter, the Community Recovery Committee will review applications for community grant program funding and make funding recommendations to the Mayor. The Mayor shall review the Community Recovery Committee's recommendations and make a final recommendation on the use of funds to the City Council. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.020: RESPONSIBILITIES: The Community Recovery Committee will: A. Advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council on decisions related to the City's community grant program. B. Coordinate with relevant City departments on the review and evaluation of current strategic plans, goals, and policies of the departments' grant programs. C. Review all eligible project proposals submitted by various business, and nonprofit organizations for the community grant program and to make recommendations to the Mayor on such requests for funds. D. Monitor the community grant program and ensure that the program is being implemented as planned and the funds from the program are utilized as recommended and approved by the Council. E. Help ensure that the community grant program goals are consistent with the strategic plans and goals of the City and are consistent with the federal requirements for utilization of Rescue Plan funds. F. Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the community grant program. G. Consider geographic equity in the overall funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council under the community grant program. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.030: MEMBERSHIP: A. The Community Recovery Committee shall be made up of a total of seven (7) or nine (9) members, with at least three (3) members from the Human Rights Commission, one (1) member from the Business Advisory Board, up to three (3) members from the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, one (1) member from the Economic Development Loan Fund Committee and one (1) member from the Salt Lake Arts Council. B. Members of the Community Recovery Committee will be appointed by the Salt Lake City Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. Individuals appointed to the Community Recovery Committee will be authorized under City Code to serve on two (2) City boards. (Ord. 50-22, 2022: Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.040: COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM: The Administration will create the community grant program to efficiently deploy the Rescue Plan community grant program funds utilizing the following policies and objectives: 2/13/23, 2:29 PM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/eaa5fce7-9601-4be0-8a48-9cb553893360/download/2/2 A. No single application for a community grant will exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). B. Any application for a community grant to a nonprofit organization will focus on supporting communities disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including, but not limited to, by offering services to retrain displaced workers; providing legal or other assistance for evictions or rent relief; expanding educational opportunities; deploying resources to mitigate the digital divide; supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 including childcare or after school programs; and providing access to healthcare services, including mental health support. C. Any application for a community grant for local business will focus on supporting the business's operations or employees who have been economically affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.050: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNITY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATIONS: Community grant program applications for either nonprofit organizations or local businesses will include, at a minimum, the following information to be considered by the Community Recovery Committee: A. The amount of community grant funds the organization is seeking and how the nonprofit organization or local businesses intends to use the proposed funds. B. Affirmation, after consultation with the City's Finance Department, that the proposed use is eligible under the federal Rescue Plan guidelines and that the applicant will be able to spend the funds by December 31, 2024. C. Identification of how the proposed grant will meet the City's objectives of supporting underserved communities, mitigating economic impacts on local businesses or arts organizations, or mitigating the effects of COVID-19 on the community. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) 2.20.060: SUNSET: Upon either full expenditure of the Rescue Plan funds, or expiration of the deadline to expend such funds, the Community Recovery Committee shall cease to exist under City Code, unless the City Council expands the scope of the Community Recovery Committee’s responsibilities, in which case the Community Recovery Committee will remain in effect. (Ord. 17-22, 2022) Community Grant Application Name Legal Business Name Total Score Avg Score (Total Score divided by 7 - # of CRC members) Eligible Funding (Based on Proven Loss - $) ELIGIBLE x Avg Score ($) CRC RECOMMENDED FUNDING OPTION: % Based on Score -w ALL Districts Represented District Business Category CGA-00083628 Nico's Restaurant LLC 671 95.86 $44,900 $43,041.14 43,041.14$ 1 TTH CGA-00090225 Wasatch Theatre Company of Salt Lake County 630 90.00 $30,000 $27,000.00 27,000.00$ 2 AB RCGA-00059837 L.L. Hair & Beauty 625 89.29 $38,490 $34,367.72 34,367.72$ 7 SB CGA-00085179 Monsoon Creative LLC 620 88.57 $32,978 $29,208.61 29,208.61$ 2 AB RCGA-00062514 Break Bread Barber Co LLC 620 88.57 $24,000 $21,256.80 21,256.80$ 3 SB RCGA-00060352 Mid City Salon 617 88.14 $50,000 $44,070.00 44,070.00$ 4 SB CGA-00085016 Ignite Studios 611 87.29 $27,500 $24,004.75 24,004.75$ 5 AB RCGA-00061219 Salt Lake Bicycle Tours LLC 600 85.71 $30,000 $25,713.00 25,713.00$ 4 TTH RCGA-00062957 Reflective Art Studio 598 85.43 $46,000 $39,297.80 39,297.80$ 5 AB RCGA-00063362 Matrixx Massage Inc 589 84.14 $50,000 $42,070.00 42,070.00$ 4 SB RCGA-00061142 Tankinz Noodle Mfg. LLC 588 84.00 $50,000 $42,000.00 42,000.00$ 2 SB CGA-00100185 Pacific Seas Restaurant 588 84.00 $50,000 $42,000.00 42,000.00$ 2 TTH CGA-00087904 Marblecast Products Inc.586 83.71 $30,000 $25,113.00 25,113.00$ 2 AB RCGA-00063526 Pasifika First Fridays 584 83.43 $40,000 $33,372.00 33,372.00$ 2 AB RCGA-00059671 Lazy Llama Ecowear 575 82.14 RCGA-00063379 Eighteen Percent Gray 574 82.00 RCGA-00063614 Balabe LLC 572 81.71 CGA-00082314 Sonar LLC 570 81.43 RCGA-00061711 Fice LLC 569 81.29 CGA-00090190 Higher Ground Learning SLC LLC 567 81.00 RCGA-00063345 h2blow Salt Lake City, LLC 561 80.14 $50,000 $40,070.00 8,885.17$ 6 SB CGA-00084803 Nomad Two 559 79.86 TOTAL 481,400.00$ RCGA-00059793 Blind Pig, LLC. DBA The Rest 557 79.57 CGA-00084799 Chloe Della Costa 555 79.29 CGA-00085001 My Style Pizza Co DBA Wild Pepper Pizza 555 79.29 RCGA-00059722 Alexander Cole Investment Group, LLC 554 79.14 RCGA-00062228 Stay Design LLC 553 79.00 RCGA-00059669 Helloo! Digital Media LLC 552 78.86 CGA-00085013 Community Building Services 552 78.86 RCGA-00063613 Alamarie DBA Twisted Roots 549 78.43 RCGA-00060249 CytyByrd 548 78.29 RCGA-00063584 Pago LLC 546 78.00 CGA-00084992 Cancer Wellness House, Inc.545 77.86 RCGA-00060794 Maize Tacos LLC 544 77.71 CGA-00083792 Wasteless Solutions Inc 544 77.71 RCGA-00059670 Colt Cooper Consulting LLC 543 77.57 RCGA-00063450 Olio Products Co.543 77.57 CGA-00082381 Alltra LLC DBA Golden Pearl Restaurant 531 75.86 CGA-00085198 Hanns Ebensten Travel Inc 529 75.57 RCGA-00065597 Salt & Honey Market 527 75.29 RCGA-00062457 Bona Parte LLC Hemingway Café 527 75.29 RCGA-00059983 Troubadour LLC 524 74.86 CGA-00085181 Forge Motion Pictures, LLC 522 74.57 RCGA-00062764 Topless Tours 519 74.14 RCGA-00063183 Sugar House Coffee 519 74.14 RCGA-00059714 I C D C, Incorporated DBA Dexterity Salon 517 73.86 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Committee Score RCGA-00063385 Hub Salt Lake, LLC 516 73.71 CGA-00082998 Normal Ice Cream 516 73.71 RCGA-00060006 Nohm, LLC 513 73.29 RCGA-00059904 Church & State Spirits LLC DBA Water Witch Bar 512 73.14 RCGA-00060541 Joshua Lucero, LLC 509 72.71 RCGA-00060303 Soul Traveler LLC 506 72.29 CGA-00085094 Water Fusions LLC 506 72.29 RCGA-00059865 Custom Travel, LLC 502 71.71 RCGA-00062865 Utah Arts & Cultural Coalition DBA Utah Cultural Alliance Foundation 502 71.71 CGA-00085106 Gorkha Enterprises Inc DBA Himalayan Kitchen 500 71.43 CGA-00083945 Utah Public Health Association 498 71.14 RCGA-00059712 Sparkle On, LLC 497 71.00 RCGA-00059702 BD Howes 497 71.00 RCGA-00063603 Torrey House Press 497 71.00 RCGA-00061709 Rocky Mountain Innocence Center 494 70.57 RCGA-00060227 Copperfield Publishing 490 70.00 RCGA-00062913 Craft Lake City 488 69.71 RCGA-00063051 Z Nectar LLC 487 69.57 RCGA-00063217 Villalba & Rikli LLC DBA Nostalgia Cafe 485 69.29 RCGA-00063376 Pathway Associates 480 68.57 CGA-00089752 Pastry Arts Barrani 478 68.29 CGA-00085098 Utah Arts Festival Foundation, Inc.478 68.29 CGA-00084583 Rise Up School of Dance 475 67.86 RCGA-00059959 Select Sound Entertainment 472 67.43 RCGA-00061556 Salt Lake Film Society 471 67.29 RCGA-00063521 Condie's Candy Co Inc 467 66.71 RCGA-00060500 Original Utah Woolen Mills 462 66.00 CGA-00083992 China Delight Fast Foods Restaurant Inc 453 64.71 RCGA-00063179 LUX Hospitality Group, Inc 451 64.43 CGA-00084812 The Musician Marketplace 449 64.14 CGA-00083408 Seybo LLC 446 63.71 RCGA-00063347 Utah Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce DBA Utah LGBTQ+ Chamber of Commerce 446 63.71 CGA-00083556 Riverside Barbershop 445 63.57 CGA-00085048 Cathedral Tattoo Co LLC DBA Mercy Tattoo 443 63.29 CGA-00082740 Millcreek Coffee Roasters 442 63.14 CGA-00087900 Jasmine Food and More DBA Shaharzad 438 62.57 RCGA-00063259 Utah Arts Alliance 424 60.57 RCGA-00060323 Northstar Builders Inc 424 60.57 RCGA-00063178 Edgeworks Events, LLC 423 60.43 CGA-00085059 Wayne Brown Institute DBA Kinect Capital 422 60.29 RCGA-00060789 Array Salon LLC 420 60.00 RCGA-00063598 The Salt Lake Barber Company LLC 418 59.71 CGA-00084540 Utah Bicycle Coalition 415 59.29 RCGA-00063473 Salt Lake Acting Company 408 58.29 CGA-00084856 Dimple's Organics LLC DBA Saffron Valley 401 57.29 RCGA-00062296 Epic Brewing Company, LLC 391 55.86 CGA-00082595 Seven Canyons Trust 364 52.00 CGA-00084849 That Sandwich Shop 331 47.29 Attachment 3 - Summary List of Local Business Assistance ARPA Grant Applications by Average Committee Score ARPA Community Grant Program Phase Two Distribution - Community Recovery Committee Recommendation Request: Approve the Community Recovery Committee’s Recommended List of 15 applicants to receive remaining ARPA funding from $2M allocation. Approve distribution of ARPA Community Grant Funds in the amount of $481,400.00. Program – Phase 2 The Department of Economic Development (DED) created a program that: •Allowed both new applicants & unsuccessful applicants from Phase 1 to apply in Phase 2. •Allowed artists and home-based businesses to apply. •Allowed small businesses to be reviewed anonymously. •Provided technical assistance for all applicants. Applicants – Phase 2 •94 eligible small business (SB) applications reviewed by the Community Recovery Committee Demographics – Phase 2 •Compared to Phase 1, the Phase 2 recommended awardees included more Westside businesses, women-owned businesses, & businesses that have not received any other COVID-19 assistance. Demographic Group Phase 1 - % of recommended applicants Phase 2 - % of recommended applicants Located on the Westside (Districts 1 and 2)21%47% 100% BIPOC-owned (Black, Indigenous, and persons of color) 33%33% 100% Women-owned 40%47% Have not received any other COVID-19 assistance (PPP, EIDL, etc.) 31%33% •Also, 73% of Phase 2 recommended awardees were re-applicants from Phase 1. Many of these applicants were able to receive technical assistance from City staff and received much higher scores in Phase 2. Community Recovery Committee (CRC) Process: Grant recommendations were completed by the Community Recovery Committee (CRC), which is comprised of individuals that serve on other City boards/commissions. The CRC completed the following: •Reviewed and discuss submitted applications •Request clarification about applications or grant process •Discuss ways to improve fairness and equity Request: Approve the Community Recovery Committee’s Recommended List of 15 applicants to receive remaining ARPA funding from $2M allocation. Approve distribution of ARPA Community Grant Funds in the amount of $481,400.00. Thank You! ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LORENA RIFFO JENSON DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 10/10/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Lorena Riffo Jenson, Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Community Grant Program Funds- Phase Two Distribution - Community Recovery Committee (CRC) Recommendation for Distribution STAFF CONTACTS: Todd Andersen, ARPA Project Coordinator, Todd.Andersen@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Review and Approve the $481,400 disbursement of ARPA Community Grant Program Funds for Phase 2. BUDGET IMPACT: Distribution of $481,400 allocated in FY22, BA5. COORDINATION: Community and Neighborhoods (CAN), Mayor’s Office, SLC Finance Department, and other outside organizations. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On March 11, 2021, the U.S. government signed into law a COVID-19 recovery bill, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). ARPA was intended to support State and Local recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency (COVID-19 Pandemic) and the negative economic impacts experienced because of the pandemic. The U.S. Department of the Treasury released materials associated with the release of funds to cities and states, known as the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Salt Lake City received approximately $85.4 million of these funds, which must be committed by December 31, 2024 and spent by December 31, 2026. After extensive community engagement, the Mayor and City Council approved the creation of rachel otto (Oct 10, 2023 11:09 MDT) 10/10/2023 10/10/2023 the Community Grant Program to help small businesses and nonprofits recover from the negative economic impacts of the pandemic. In April of 2022, Salt Lake City Council adopted city code Chapter 2.20, which established the Community Grant Program. The Community Grant Program is administered by both the Department of Economic Development (DED) and Community and Neighborhoods (CAN). Both departments were tasked with deploying $2M each of the $85.4 million federal funds granted to the City. Below is an overview of the program, guidelines, scoring and recommendation by the Community Recovery Committee (CRC). CRC Recommendation & Demographics In Phase 2 a total of 116 small business or artist applications were received, and of those 94 were eligible for further review. The Community Recovery Committee has recommended funding be distributed to 15 small businesses and artists, which utilizes the remaining $481,400 of the Community Grant Program funds. The table below shows demographic data of the 15 applications recommended for Phase 2 awards by the committee: Demographic Group # of recommended applicants (out of 15 total recommended) Located on the westside (Districts 1 and 2) 7 100% BIPOC-owned (Black, Indigenous, and persons of color) 5 100% Female-owned 7 Have not received any other COVID-19 assistance (PPP, EIDL, etc.) 5 Re-applicants from Phase 1 11 New applicants to Phase 2 4 Program Overview ● No single application for a community grant will exceed $100,000.00 ● Any application for a community grant to a nonprofit organization will focus on supporting communities disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including, but not limited to, offering services to retrain displaced workers: providing legal or other assistance for evictions or rent relief: expanding educational opportunities; deploying resources to mitigate the digital divide; supporting parents or children affected by COVID-19 including childcare or after school program; and providing access to healthcare services, including mental health support. ● Any application for a community grant for a local business will focus on supporting the business’s operation or employees who have been economically affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. CRC Members City Council created the Community Recovery Committee (CRC) to oversee the process, review the applications and make recommendations for the deployment of funds. The CRC is currently comprised of eight (8) members that serve on the following other boards: Economic Development Loan CommitteeRacial Equity in Policing (2 members from this board) Human Rights Commission (3 members from this board) Salt Lake Arts Council Business Advisory Board Scoring The CRC used the following scoring methodology in Phase 2: Applicants were eligible for 100 base points with the following breakdown- ●60% of the points are based on narratives the businesses provided sharing how COVID-19 impacted their business (past, present, and future) ●40% of points are based on how a business was able to navigate through the pandemic. In addition to the base points, staff awarded up to 70 bonus points to impacted and disproportionately impacted communities including: ●100% BIPOC-owned business (15 points) ●100% Female-owned business (15 points) ●Artist-artisan business (15 points) ●Business located in qualified census tracts - QCT (15 points) ●Business in the travel, tourism, & hospitality sector (5 points) ●Business in the City Center (5 points) The Committee’s recommended awardee list for Phase 2 is based on: 1) the Committee’s adopted methodology of a “sliding scale” (eligible funding amount multiplied by average Committee score) to calculate top scorers, and 2) making sure that all City Council Districts have at least one applicant on recommended list to ensure geographic equity. Qualifying Use of Funds To meet the qualifying criteria established by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and to align our grants with SLFRF expenditure categories, applications were categorized into one of the four categories below: ●Small business economic assistance ●Aid to tourism, travel or hospitality ●Aid to arts and artisan businesses ●Aid to nonprofit organizations with programming specific to small businesses or arts and artisan businesses. All four of these expenditure categories are small business-related, eligible for funding through the Community Grant Program and aid Salt Lake City’s Department of Finance (Finance) to administer the distribution of funds. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion To ensure the Community Grant Program is available to all potentially interested applicants, DED instituted the following measures to ensure the program is equitable, transparent, and inclusive: ● Application materials, training videos, and presentations were provided in multiple languages. ● Online and paper applications were accepted. ● Training and Technical Assistance appointments were offered on both the East and West sides of Salt Lake City. ● Individual application assistance was provided by DED, the International Rescue Committee, and Utah Small Business Development Center (SBDC) as needed. Attachments: ● Exhibit A: List of Recommended Businesses for Grant Approval – Phase 2 ● Ordinance ● Letter from the CRC EXHIBIT A SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2023 (Ordinance approving the disbursement of American Rescue Plan Act Community Grant Program Funds for Phase 2) WHEREAS, the global COVID-19 pandemic impacted the world and local economy at an unprecedented level, and Salt Lake City’s nonprofit organizations, local businesses, and residents have been negatively impacted by the economic uncertainty caused by the pandemic. WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, the U.S. government signed into law a COVID-19 recovery bill, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and allocated federal funding to Salt Lake City Corporation (City) to use for certain COVID-related uses, including to support disproportionately impacted communities and to mitigate negative economic impacts within the community. WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, the City Council passed Salt Lake City Ordinance 17 of 2022, enacting Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.20 and establishing a new community grant program to govern the distribution of certain ARPA funds, including the creation of the Community Recovery Committee tasked with reviewing grant applications and making recommendations on the disbursement of community recovery grant funds. WHEREAS, on March 7, 2023, the City Council passed Salt Lake City Ordinance 12 of 2023, approving the disbursement of a portion of the community recovery grant funds to small businesses and nonprofit organizations approved by the Community Recovery Committee for direct economic assistance, which disbursement was considered Phase 1, Group 1 of grant fund allocation. WHEREAS, on October 3, 2023, the City Council passed Salt Lake City Ordinance 52 of 2023, approving the disbursement of a portion of the community recovery as pass-through grant funds to nonprofit subrecipients approved by the Community Recovery Committee to provide services and support to communities disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which disbursement was considered Phase 1, Group 2 of grant fund allocation. WHEREAS, beginning in June 2023 and continuing through August 2023, the Community Recovery Committee, for the purpose of disbursing additional direct economic assistance grants, held ten meetings to review and consider 94 applications from small businesses seeking grant funding for direct economic assistance, in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.20. WHEREAS, the Community Recovery Committee evaluated the applications in accordance with Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.20, and considered the applicant’s proposed use of funds, geographic equity, the policies and objectives of the community grant program, and the federal requirements of ARPA. WHEREAS, the Community Recovery Committee completed the review of the applications and has recommended funding allocations to be reviewed by the Mayor. WHEREAS, pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.20, the Mayor has reviewed the Community Recovery Committee’s recommendations and recommends that the City Council approve the funding allocations as described in Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that: SECTION 1. Funding Approval. The City Council approves the funding allocations as further described in Exhibit A. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute the grant agreements and any other relevant documents required, consistent with Exhibit A and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.20, and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. 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. Darin Mano, Council Chair ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2023. Published: . APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Sara Montoya, City Attorney Date: October 10, 2023 Letter from the Community Recovery Committee Dear Mayor and City Council, The Community Recovery Committee (CRC) knows that the COVID-19 pandemic and related shutdowns were devastating to many small businesses in Salt Lake City, and many have struggled to financially recover from the effects of the pandemic. During Phase 1 of the SLC Community Grant Program, the CRC was thrilled that the City Council awarded 42 small businesses and artists with COVID-19 recovery funding. The Committee also understands the difficulties that small businesses and artists still face because of the COVID-19 pandemic. During Phase 2, we continued to dedicate a great deal of care and effort into conducting a fair and equitable process that would award as much money to as many businesses as possible. With that said, this is a competitive grant program and the Committee focused for many hours over difficult decisions to award limited funding. After reviewing various funding options, we are again recommending a ‘sliding scale’ be applied to the eligible award amount based on the average score the applicant received to fund more grantees. We recommend that the applicants scoring the highest be awarded funds until the Phase 2 funding amount is exhausted. The Committee feels we put forth the best, and most equitable recommendation we could and appreciate your consideration of our decision. Sincerely, Jake Maxwell Chair – Community Recovery Committee 2024 Tentative Budget November 14th, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 2024 Operating Budget Salt Lake City Highlights 2 Bus •934,000 total service hours in SL County •$6M+ from SLC funds Routes 1, 2, 9 & 21 Trax •169,000 total service hours •+Saturday service add annualization in 2024 Frontrunner •351 weekly train runs through the city •+$500,000 budget in 2024 for enhancement On Demand •$3.0M budget in SLC, $5.7M in South SL county •+$1.4M budget in SLC, +$2.0M to South SL county Paratransit & Flex •100,000 total service hours •80% of service runs in SLC 2024 UTA Budget Additions: $7.3 million 3 Service Changes: •South Salt Lake County Microtransit Enhancement •Frontrunner Additional Peak Trips (Strategic Double Tracking Program) Safety: •Hepatitis B Vaccination Program Customer Communications: •Increased Staffing for Social Media and Communications •Enhanced Transit App Features Other: •Increased Recruiting Resources To Address Operator Shortage •Addition Of Maintenance Staff To Keep Facilities In State of Good Repair •Additional Financial Resources To Better Support Service and Capital Projects •Funding For Maintenance of Electric Bus Charging Infrastructure Budget Filters/Lenses O P E R A T I N G P R I O R I T I E S •Innovate and Integrate our System •Deliver Service Excellence •Develop our People •Cultivate an Inclusive Culture •Safeguard our Future •Protect our Environment S T R A T E G I C P R I O R I T I E S •Moving Utahns to a Better Quality of Life •Exceeding Customer Expectations •Achieving Organizational Excellence •Building Community Support •Generating Critical Economic Return P R I O R I T Y C O N S I D E R A T I O N S •Legal/political mandates •Impact to Partners •Regulatory Issues •Impact to other programs/services E C O N O M I C V A L U E •Reduce Agency Costs •Make UTA a More Efficient Organization •Improve/enhance Service Delivery •Improve UTA Culture 4 5 2024 Operating Budget Overview (000’s) 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t 2 0 2 3 O n e - T i m e E x p e n s e s 2 0 2 3 A d d i t i o n s 2 0 2 4 A d j u s t m e n t s 2 0 2 3 C a r r y F o r w a r d 2 0 2 4 A d d i t i o n s 2 0 2 4 B u d g e t 2024 Additions: Service Changes Microtransit 3,300$ Frontrunner 600 Subtotal Service 3,900 Audit/Federal Compliance 200 Operating Initiatives 2,900 Capital Initiatives 300 Reconciling Items (49) Subtotal Other Requests 3,351 Grand Total 7,251$ 2024 Operating Budget by Mode $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 M i l l i o n s FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget 6 2024 Tentative Budget Capital Budget 2024 Capital Revenue Summary Bond 2.7% Grants 25.2% Lease 11.8% Local Partner 3.8% State 9.4% UTA Local 47.0% Total $230.4 million Top 5 Projects’ Funding: TPSS Components •$12.8 M Grants •$3.2 M UTA Local Fares Systems •$12.1 M UTA Local Light Rail Replacement •$5 M Bond •$5 M UTA Local Mid-Valley •$10 M State Light Rail Rehab •$9.5 M UTA Local 8 2024 Capital Expense Summary $62 $50 $49 $26 $21 $11 $6 $2 $2 $1 $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 Capital Projects Infrastructure SGR Service Vehicles Facilities IT Safety/Security 5310 Projects Property/TOC Planning Charging Infrastructure M i l l i o n s Total $230.4 million Other Projects Light Rail Rehab Midvalley Connector Light Rail Replacement Fares System TPSS Component Replacement 9 Questions? 10 UTA’s 2024 budget and supporting 5-year Capital plan were developed as the Agency was coming out of a time of economic uncertainty. Inflation had reached a 40-year high and interest rates are approaching levels last seen during the Great Recession of 2008. Year-over-year growth for costs of fuel and power, goods and services, parts, utilities, construction materials and other of providing service is significantly higher than in the recent past. Offsetting these negative economic indicators, but creating a different and difficult challenge, are robust employment, historically low unemployment levels, and a resilient Utah economy. Recruiting and retaining employees in the competitive Utah economy is a challenge and an area of focus in this budget. The 2024 budget includes $424.5 million in operating expenses and $230.4 million in capital investment to fund the provision of safe, convenient, and reliable service and key investments in our infrastructure. The budget includes federal, state, and local contributions from our partners. Budget priorities outlined here affect you and your community. Guided by the newly adopted 2030 UTA Strategic Plan, UTA has developed our budget centering on the mission, vision, and five strategic priorities. Mission “We Move You” The Utah Transit Authority moves Utah to a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, increased mobility, greater access to opportunity, and a better quality of life - all driven by safe, reliable transportation. Vision Leading Utah’s mobility solutions and improving quality of life. Strategic Priorities Budget Overview 2024Utah Transit Authority Budget Summary Operating Budget Highlights Capital Budget Highlights 2024 Budget Summary Support transit service growth, including UTA On Demand in South Salt Lake County and additional FrontRunner service Funding for operator recruitment to continue to address ongoing labor market challenges Support for maintaining system facilities cleanly and safely Hepatitis B vaccination provision for employees whose work may put them at risk for infection Accounting and financial support required for enhanced compliance and decision-making Data integration and customer experience improvements to drive increased system efficiency and ease of customer use Transit Connection Program to foster efforts across UTA to support customer information, rider support, and transit education Support for social media and other communications with riders Focus on safety, security, reliability, and maintaining a state of good repair (SGR) for our revenue vehicles, infrastructure, and support systems. Begin TRAX Blue Line vehicle replacements Electric vehicle and charging infrastructure investment Investment in technology and equipment to enhance operator and customer safety Begin Midvalley Bus Rapid Transit system construction Fare System replacement Local partner support UTA reports as a single enterprise fund and all revenues are collected in the UTA Operating Fund. Within this fund, UTA maintains two budgets – operations and capital. Transfers from the enterprise fund to the Capital program are made as necessary to support investment in the system. UTA receives operating revenues from multiple sources for a total revenue of $649 million. Sales tax revenue at $494 million (76% of total) represents the largest funding source for the 2024 budget. Federal preventive maintenance funds total $97 million and passenger revenues total $38 million. Other revenues include, in order of magnitude, local support, investment income, advertising, and other fees. Operating Revenue Summary 2024 Operating Revenues ($649.2 million) 2024 Tentative Operating Budget ($424.5 million) Operating Budget Summary The 2024 Tentative Operating Budget includes almost $343 million for operations and maintenance of the system (84% of total). These functions are represented in the green shaded segments in the graph. The “Other” functions (gray segments comprising 16 percent) include Management and Support, Planning/Capital Support, and $1.0 million set aside to fund emerging/emergency needs. 2024 Budget Summary Midvalley Connector Electric Bus Fleet Expansion Ogden/Weber Bus Rapid Transit Rail Car Replacement New South Jordan TRAX platform Capital Budget Summary 2024 Capital Revenues ($230.4 million)2024 Major Capital Projects Ways to Get Involved! Website Comment Form: www.rideuta.com/Budget Email: hearingofficer@rideuta.com Phone: 801-743-3882 Mailing: Utah Transit Authority, C/O Jolisha Branch, 669 W 200 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Date & Time: Wednesday, November 1 Open House: 5-5:30pm; Public Hearing: 5:30pm Location: 669 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, UT. Join virtually: www.rideuta.com/Board-of-Trustees/Meetings Review the complete 2024 Tentative Budget and comment between November 1, 2023 – December 1, 2023. Submit your feedback in any of the following ways: Public Hearing & Open House: Complete information on the 2024 Tentative Budget can be found at www.rideuta.com/Budget. 2024 Budget Summary                       UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 2024 OPERATING BUDGET October 5, 2023 Exhibit A Revenue 2024 Budget 1 Sales Tax $493,670,000 2 Federal Preventive Maintenance 96,960,000 3 Passenger Revenue 37,981,000 4 Advertising 2,328,000 5 Investment Income 5,625,000 6 Other Revenues 12,647,000 7 Stimulus Funding - 8 Total Revenue 649,211,000 Operating Expense 9 Bus 142,703,000 10 Commuter Rail 38,028,000 11 Light Rail 64,530,000 12 Paratransit 29,154,000 13 Rideshare/Vanpool 4,012,000 14 Microtransit 12,949,000 15 Operations Support 64,424,000 16 Administration 54,515,000 17 Planning/Capital Support 13,228,000 18 Non-Departmental 1,000,000 19 Total Operating Expense 424,543,000 Debt Service, Contribution to Reserves, and Transfer to Capital 20 Principal and Interest 165,725,000 21 Bond Service Utah County for UVX BRT program 3,375,000 22 Contribution to Reserves 21,000,000 23 Transfer to Capital 34,568,000 24 Total Debt Service, Reserves, Transfers 224,668,000 25 Total Expense $649,211,000 UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 2024 CAPITAL BUDGET October 5, 2023 Exhibit A-1 Funding Sources 2024 Budget 1 UTA Current Year Funding $116,579,000 2 Grants 58,020,000 3 Local Partner Contributions 8,823,000 4 State Contribution 13,447,000 5 Leasing 27,234,000 6 Bonds 6,330,000 7 Total Funding Sources 230,433,000 Expense 8 State of Good Repair 115,176,000 9 Mid Valley Connector 10,000,000 10 VW Battery Buses 7,391,000 11 Ogden/Weber State University BRT 5,600,000 12 HB322 Future Rail Car Purchase Payment 5,000,000 13 Capital Contingency 5,000,000 14 Other Capital Projects 82,266,000 15 Total Expense $230,433,000 UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 2024 OPERATING BUDGET October 5, 2023 Exhibit A-2 Revenue 2024 Budget 1 Sales Tax $ 493,670,000 2 Federal Preventive Maintenance 96,960,000 3 Passenger Revenue 37,981,000 4 Advertising 2,328,000 5 Investment Income 5,625,000 6 Other Revenues 12,647,000 7 Stimulus Funding - 8 Total Revenue $ 649,211,000 Operating Expense FTE 9 Board of Trustees $ 3,370,000 16.0 10 Executive Director 6,414,000 31.5 11 Communications 4,279,000 16.5 12 Operations 319,000,000 2,311.7 13 Finance 19,726,000 134.0 14 Service Development 7,471,000 59.0 15 Planning & Engagement 22,821,000 84.2 16 Enterprise Strategy 28,547,000 124.0 17 People Office 11,914,000 94.0 18 Non-Departmental 1,000,000 - 19 Total Operations 424,543,000 2,870.9 20 Debt Service 169,100,000 21 Contribution to Reserves 21,000,000 22 Transfer to Capital Budget 34,568,000 23 Total Tentative 2024 Operating Budget $ 649,211,000 2,870.9 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ri d e r s h i p i n M i l l i o n s Total System Ridership 2020 2021 2022 2023 FCST 2024 FCST 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Platform Hours 2022 2023 FCST 2024 Budget Sales Tax 76.0% Federal PM 14.9%Passenger 5.9% Investment 0.9% Local Support 1.3% Other Income 0.7% Adverts. 0.4%Other 3.2% 2024 Operating Revenue ($649.2 million) Bus 33.6% Light Rail 15.2% Commuter Rail 9.0% Paratransit 6.9% Rideshare/Vanpool 0.9%Micro Transit 3.1% Operations Support 15.2% Admin 12.8% Planning / Capital Support 3.1% Contingency 0.2% Other 16.2% 2024 Tentative Operating Budget ($424.5 million) Mode FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change % Change Bus $139,267,000 $142,703,000 $3,436,000 2.5% Commuter Rail 36,558,000 38,028,000 1,470,000 4.0% Light Rail 62,982,000 64,530,000 1,548,000 2.5% Paratransit 28,248,000 29,154,000 906,000 3.2% Rideshare/Vanpool 4,015,000 4,012,000 (3,000)-0.1% Microtransit 9,164,000 12,949,000 3,785,000 41.3% Operations Support 62,788,000 64,424,000 1,636,000 2.6% Administration 51,114,000 54,515,000 3,401,000 6.7% Planning/Capital Support 14,159,000 13,228,000 (931,000)-6.6% Non-Departmental 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 0.0% Total Division $409,295,000 $424,543,000 $15,248,000 3.7% Office FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change % Change Board $3,168,000 $3,370,000 $202,000 6.4% Executive Director 6,023,000 6,414,000 391,000 6.5% Operations 312,599,000 319,000,000 6,401,000 2.0% Finance 17,461,000 19,726,000 2,265,000 13.0% Capital Services 8,771,000 7,471,000 (1,300,000)-14.8% Planning & Engagement 18,817,000 22,821,000 4,004,000 21.3% Enterprise Strategy 25,009,000 28,547,000 3,538,000 14.1% People 12,487,000 11,914,000 (573,000)-4.6% Communication 3,962,000 4,279,000 317,000 8.0% Non-Departmental 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 0.0% Total Division $409,295,000 $424,543,000 $15,248,000 3.7%        Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change % Change Wages $193,688,000 $200,950,000 $7,262,000 3.7% Fringe 97,858,000 100,146,000 2,288,000 2.3% Services 39,960,000 45,260,000 5,300,000 13.3% Fuel/Power 35,623,000 35,490,000 (133,000)-0.4% Parts 23,447,000 25,488,000 2,041,000 8.7% Utilities 6,189,000 7,371,000 1,182,000 19.1% Other O&M 24,400,000 22,468,000 (1,932,000)-7.9% Capitalized Costs (11,869,000) (12,630,000) (761,000) 6.4% Total Budget $409,295,000 $424,543,000 $15,248,000 3.7% Mode FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change % Change Bus 1,242.5 1,219.0 (23.5) -1.9% Commuter Rail 201.5 201.5 - 0.0% Light Rail 445.0 446.0 1.0 0.2% Paratransit 205.0 203.0 (2.0) -1.0% Rideshare/Vanpool 11.0 11.0 - 0.0% Microtransit 3.0 5.0 2.0 66.7% Operations Support 481.9 488.4 6.5 1.3% Administration 193.9 211.0 17.1 8.8% Planning/Capital Support 88.0 86.0 (2.0) -2.3% Non-Departmental - - - - Total Division 2,871.8 2,870.9 (0.9) 0.0% Office FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change % Change Board 15.4 16.0 0.6 4.0% Executive Director 32.0 31.5 (0.5)-1.6% Operations 2,334.2 2,311.7 (22.5)-1.0% Finance 124.0 134.0 10.0 8.1% Capital Services 62.0 59.0 (3.0)-4.8% Planning & Engagement 81.2 84.2 3.0 3.7% Enterprise Strategy 122.0 124.0 2.0 1.6% Communications 15.0 16.5 1.5 10.0% People 86.0 94.0 8.0 9.3% Total FTE 2,871.8 2,870.9 (0.9)0.0%   August 2023 forecasts the University of Utah. This forecast will be updated in November of 2023 and will inform the final 2024 Budget documents.    2022 Actuals 2023 Forecast 2024 Budget Change 2023 - 2024 Sales Tax $480.9 $480.9 $493.7 $12.7 Federal Preventative Maint. 47.3 150.0 97.0 (53.0) Stimulus Funds 167.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Passenger 33.5 35.8 38.0 2.1 Salt Lake City 6.9 8.0 8.2 0.3 Investment 1.8 7.2 5.6 (1.6) Advertising 2.2 2.3 2.3 0.0 Other 27.4 3.7 4.4 0.8 Total Revenue (Millions) $767.8 $687.9 $649.2 ($38.7)         $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 2020 2021 2022 2023* 2024* Mi l l i o n s Sales Tax $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 2020 2021 2022 2023* 2024* Mi l l i o n s Advertising - 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 2020 2021 2022 2023* 2024* Ri d e r s h i p Mi l l i o n s Re v e n u e Mi l l i o n s Passenger Revenues and Ridership Passenger Revenue Ridership $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 2020 2021 2022 2023* 2024* Mi l l i o n s Federal Preventive Maintenance 1 * $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 2020 2021 2022 2023* 2024* Mi l l i o n s Investment Income $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 2020 2021 2022 2023* 2024* Mi l l i o n s Other Income Actuals Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Sources 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 A Beginning Balance $321.8 $435.2 $531.6 $470.9 $405.8 $357.6 $344.8 Sales Tax $480.9 $480.9 $493.7 $518.5 $543.3 $568.2 $593.0 PM Funds (FTA) 47.3 150.0 97.0 97.9 98.9 99.8 100.7 Stimulus Funds 167.8 - - - - - - Passenger Funds 33.5 35.8 38.0 39.2 40.2 40.9 42.0 B Capital Sources 109.5 204.4 113.9 207.0 167.3 131.9 188.1 Other Sources 38.3 21.2 20.6 19.7 19.3 19.8 18.1 C Total Sources $877.3 $892.3 $763.2 $882.3 $869.0 $860.6 $941.9 Uses D Operating Expense $421.2 $392.2 $424.4 $444.1 $466.0 $481.2 $507.7 E Capital Expense 205.3 214.3 230.4 325.9 263.4 194.6 257.6 F Debt Service 149.6 159.4 169.1 177.5 187.9 197.6 213.2 G Total Uses $776.1 $765.9 $823.9 $947.4 $917.2 $873.3 $978.5 H Net Change 101.2 126.4 (60.8) (65.1) (48.2) (12.7) (36.5) I Cash Amended 1 12.2 (30.0) - - - - - J Ending Balance 435.2 531.6 470.9 405.8 357.6 344.8 308.3 K Reserves 180.8 190.1 211.1 234.1 257.2 233.2 249.8 L Long-term Capital Exp. Investment - - 60.8 65.1 48.2 12.7 36.5 M Unrestricted Fund Balance $254.4 $341.5 $199.0 $106.6 $52.1 $98.9 $22.0 J = A + C - G + I M = J - K - L 1Repayment of State funds One-time expenses: 2023 Carry Forward: 2023 Bargaining signing bonus: $2.1 million Executive Director Contingency: $1.0 million 2024 Ramp Up Service Cost: $1.5 million COO Service Contigency: $0.5 million Executive Director Contingency: $1.0 million COO Operating Contingencies: $0.5 million 2024 Additions: Xpan HR system implementation: $1.5 million Microtransit South SL County Service: $3.3 million Planning project completions: $0.5 million Commuter Rail additional trips: $0.6 million Ambassador program startup: $0.5 million Finance Ops/HR Budget Analyst: $131k Accounting Payroll Mgr: $170k Staffing Changes:Accounting 2 FTE A/P Coordinators: $150k Board Analyst position (annualized cost) Capital Accountant (partially capitalized) $45k People Office Strategic Analyst (annualized cost) Contracted cleaning for Depot District garage: $150k People Office Labor Relations Business Partner Facilities Service employees 2 FTE for additional stop cleaning: $155k Finance Office Administrator (annualized cost) People MOW Trainer: $125k Mid-year promotions and wage adjustments People Data Entry clerk: $79k People HR Specialist 0.5 FTE increase to full time: $31k Recruitment marketing: $100k Service Changes:Total Rewards temp help: $40k Ogden Local Service adjustments: -$1.9 million Inclusion and Belonging consulting: $50k Salt Lake Bus Service Adjustment: -$0.3 million Planning additionals 2 FTE Planners: $260k Special Services adjustments; $0.1 million Communications Social Media Spec: $102k Trax Saturday service annualization: $0.4 million Communications 0.5 FTE Graphics Specialist: $48k Ogden OGX annualization: $0.8 million IT Systems Integrator 1.0 FTE: $140k Transit App Detour module: $88k Other Increases Maint cost new Claims system: $75k Fuel Increases: $0.9 million Ent Strat Change Mgt Contract Svcs: $100k Parts Increases: $0.3 million Safety Hep B Immunization: $150k Other materials and services increases: $2.5 million Ex. Director Coaching/Org Dev Svcs: $100k     2024 Audit/Federal Compliance FTE Cost Cumulative Cost Capital & Lease Accountant (50% capitalized) 0.50 45,000 $ 45,000 Hepatitis B Vaccine Initiative 150,000 195,000 Subtotal Audit/Federal Compliance 0.50 195,000 195,000    Board of Trustees Office $1,768,000 9.0 FTE Government Relations $879,000 3.0 FTE Internal Audit $723,000 3.0 FTE Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Board of Trustees $1,524,000 $1,768,000 $244,000 Government Relations 814,000 879,000 65,000 Internal Audit 829,000 723,000 (106,000) Totals $3,168,000 $3,370,000 $202,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $1,604,000 $1,724,000 7.5% Fringe 689,000 787,000 14.2% Services 719,000 622,000 -13.5% Utilities 6,000 10,000 66.7% Other O&M 149,000 227,000 52.3% Totals $3,168,000 $3,370,000 6.4% Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Board of Trustees 9.0 9.0 - Government Relations 2.4 3.0 0.6 Internal Audit 4.0 4.0 - Totals 15.4 16.0 0.6 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 3,168$ (125)$ 133$ -$ 113$ 47$ 3,336$ -$ 34$ 3,370$ 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget One-time expenses: 2024 Additions: Internal Audit contract services: $125k Government Relations increase admin position to full time $34k Staffing Changes: Board Analyst position (annualized cost) Other Increases: Other materials and services increases: $47k    Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Executive Director* $794,000 $948,000 $154,000 Legal Services 1,859,000 1,811,000 (48,000) Safety & Security 3,370,000 3,655,000 285,000 Non-Departmental 1,000,000 1,000,000 - Totals $7,023,000 $7,414,000 $391,000 Office of Executive Director $948,000 3.5 FTE Safety & Security $3,655,000 28.0 FTE Legal Attorney General Office $1,811,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $2,023,000 $2,121,000 4.8% Fringe 916,000 989,000 8.0% Services 3,038,000 3,021,000 -0.6% Fuel/Power 8,000 14,000 75.0% Utilities 12,000 12,000 0.0% Parts 1,000 6,000 500.0% Other O&M 245,000 251,000 2.4% Capitalized Costs -220,000 0 -100.0% Non-Departmental* 1,000,000 1,000,000 0.0% Totals $7,023,000 $7,414,000 5.6% Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Executive Director 3.5 3.5 - Legal Services - - - Safety & Security 28.5 28.0 (0.5) Non-Departmental - - - Totals 32.0 31.5 (0.5) 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 7,023$ (1,000)$ 4$ -$ 149$ (13)$ 6,164$ 1,000$ 250$ 7,414$ One-time expenses: 2023 Carry Forward: Executive Director Contingency: $1.0 million Executive Director Contingency: $1.0 million 2024 Additions: Other Increases:Safety Hep B Immunization: $150k Other materials and services changes: $113k Ex. Director Coaching/Org Dev Svcs: $100k Savings from Legal Services reduced outsourcing $-126k 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget      Office of Chief Operations $3,274,000 3.0 FTE Maintenance Management $44,448,000 227.0 FTE Fleet Eng $2,385,000 24.0 FTE Commuter Rail $32,660,000 175.0 FTE Light Rail $48,423,000 366.5 FTE Salt Lake Bus $84,250,000 738.0 FTE Ogden Bus $31,692,000 254.5 FTE Timpanogos Bus $23,492,000 195.0 FTE Special Services $33,165,000 214.0 FTE Public Safety $15,211,000 114.7 FTE Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change COO Office* $23,349,000 $20,870,000 ($2,479,000) Maintenance Mgt 43,185,000 44,448,000 1,263,000 Salt Lake Bus 82,805,000 84,250,000 1,445,000 Mt. Ogden Bus 30,166,000 31,692,000 1,526,000 Timpanogos Bus 23,086,000 23,492,000 406,000 Special Services 32,263,000 33,165,000 902,000 Light Rail 46,636,000 48,423,000 1,787,000 Commuter Rail 31,110,000 32,660,000 1,550,000 Totals $312,599,000 $319,000,000 $6,401,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $152,427,000 $156,109,000 2.4% Fringe 79,365,000 79,934,000 0.7% Services 11,598,000 13,320,000 14.8% Fuel/Power 35,219,000 34,952,000 -0.8% Parts 23,114,000 25,259,000 9.3% Utilities 5,108,000 5,845,000 14.4% Non-Departmental 5,876,000 2,432,500 -58.6% Other O&M 8,811,000 9,307,500 5.6% Capitalized Costs (8,919,000) (8,158,000) -8.5% Totals $312,599,000 $319,000,000 2.0% Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change COO Office 3.0 3.0 0.0 Public Safety 114.7 114.7 0.0 Fleet Engineering 24.0 24.0 0.0 Maintenance Mgt 225.0 227.0 2.0 Salt Lake Bus 750.0 738.0 (12.0) Mt. Ogden Bus 265.0 254.5 (10.5) Timpanogos Bus 196.0 195.0 (1.0) Special Services 216.0 214.0 (2.0) Light Rail 365.5 366.5 1.0 Commuter Rail 175.0 175.0 0.0 Totals 2,334.2 2,311.7 (22.5) 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 312,599$ (4,114)$ (254)$ (820)$ 7,627$ 2,098$ 317,135$ 500$ 1,365$ 319,000$ 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget One-time expenses: Other Increases: 2023 Bargaining signing bonus: $2.1 million Fuel Increases: $0.8 million 2024 Ramp Up Service Cost: $1.5 million Parts Increases: $0.3 million COO Operating Contingencies: $0.5 million Other materials and services increases: $1.0 million Staffing Changes: 2023 Carry Forward: Transfer out of Special Projects Director from COO to Ent Strat COO Service Contingency: $0.5 million Service Changes: 2024 Additions: Ogden Local Service adjustments: -$1.9 million Commuter Rail additional trips: $0.6 million Salt Lake Bus Service Adjustment: -$0.3 million Contracted cleaning for Depot District garage: $150k Special Services adjustments; $0.1 million Facilities Service employees 2 FTE for additional stop cleaning: $155k Trax Saturday service annualization: $0.4 million Bus Charger Maintenance Contract and tech training: $275k Ogden OGX annualization: $0.8 million Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change COO Office $6,429,000 $3,274,000 ($3,155,000) Transit Comms Center 2,272,000 2,403,000 131,000 Public Safety 12,429,000 12,809,000 380,000 Fleet Engineering 2,219,000 2,385,000 166,000 Totals $23,349,000 $20,870,000 ($2,479,000) Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $11,639,000 $12,047,000 3.5% Fringe 5,413,000 5,740,000 6.0% Services 245,000 249,000 1.6% Fuel/Power 263,000 253,000 -3.8% Utilities 153,000 173,000 0.0% Non-Departmental 5,876,000 2,432,500 0.0% Other O&M 669,000 858,500 0.0% Capitalized Costs -908,000 -883,000 -2.8% Totals $23,349,000 $20,870,000 -10.6% Office of Chief Operations $3,274,000 3.0 FTE Fleet Eng $2,385,000 24.0 FTE Public Safety $12,809,000 88.73 FTE Transit Communications Center $2,403,000 26.00 FTE Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Operations 3.0 3.0 - Public Safety 88.7 88.7 - Transit Comms Center 26.0 26.0 - Fleet Engineering 24.0 24.0 - Totals 141.7 141.7 - 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 23,349$ (2,038)$ (223)$ (1,905)$ 760$ 153$ 20,095$ 500$ 275$ 20,870$ 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget One-time expenses: 2023 Carry Forward: 2024 Ramp Up Service Cost: $1.5 million COO Service Contigency: $0.5 million COO Operating Contingencies: $0.5 million 2024 Additions: Other Increases:Bus Charger Maintenance Contract and tech training: $275k Other materials and services increases: $0.2 million Operations Contingency: Service Changes:Supervisor ratios: $1.6 million Ogden Local Service contingency adjustments: -$1.9 million Operator Retention: $350k Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Salt Lake Administration $899,000 $1,167,000 $268,000 Salt Lake Operations 54,541,000 54,952,000 411,000 Salt Lake Maintenance 27,365,000 28,132,000 767,000 Totals $82,805,000 $84,250,000 $1,445,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $45,357,163 $46,274,150 2.0% Fringe 24,539,064 24,430,143 -0.4% Services 149,500 335,500 124.4% Fuel/Power 8,318,018 7,871,217 -5.4% Utilities 113,000 113,000 0.0% Parts 3,013,373 3,596,270 19.3% Other O&M 1,314,484 1,629,763 24.0% Totals $82,805,000 $84,250,000 1.7% Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Salt Lake Administration 6.0 6.0 - Salt Lake Operations 595.0 583.0 (12.0) Salt Lake Maintenance 149.0 149.0 - Totals 750.0 738.0 (12.0) Salt Lake Bus Administration $1,167,000 5.0 FTE Salt Lake Bus Operations $54,952,000 583.0 FTE Salt Lake Bus Maintenance $28,132,000 149.0 FTE 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 82,805$ (728)$ -$ (308)$ 2,006$ 326$ 84,100$ -$ 150$ 84,250$ One-time expenses: Other Increases: 2023 Bargaining signing bonus Fuel Increases: $250k Parts Increases: $0.1 million Service Changes:Other materials and services increases: $0.1 million Salt Lake County Service misc adjustments 2024 Additions: Contracted cleaning for Depot District garage: $150k 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Timp Administration $455,000 $488,000 $33,000 Timp Operations 13,965,000 14,260,000 295,000 Timp Maintenance 8,665,000 8,743,000 78,000 Totals $23,086,000 $23,492,000 $406,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $12,099,000 $12,432,000 2.8% Fringe 6,475,000 6,432,000 -0.7% Services 59,000 50,000 -15.3% Fuel/Power 3,144,000 3,230,000 2.7% Utilities 14,000 15,000 7.1% Parts 1,060,000 1,015,000 -4.2% Other O&M 284,000 318,000 12.0% Capitalized Costs (49,000) - - Totals $23,086,000 $23,492,000 1.8% Timpanogos Bus Administration $488,000 3.0 FTE Timpanogos Bus Operations $14,260,000 150.0 FTE Timpanogos Bus Maintenance $8,743,000 42.0 FTE Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Timp Administration 3.0 3.0 - Timp Operations 151.0 150.0 (1.0) Timp Maintenance 42.0 42.0 - Totals 196.0 195.0 (1.0) 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 23,086$ (226)$ -$ (17)$ 529$ 121$ 23,492$ -$ -$ 23,492$ One-time expenses: Other Increases: 2023 Bargaining signing bonus Fuel Increases: $98k Parts Increases: $10k Service Changes:Other materials and services increases: $29k Timpanogos misc service adjustments 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Ogden Administration $642,000 $663,000 $21,000 Ogden Operations 18,334,000 19,473,000 1,139,000 Ogden Maintenance 11,190,000 11,556,000 366,000 Totals $30,166,000 $31,692,000 $1,526,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $15,857,000 $16,860,000 6.3% Fringe 8,547,000 8,727,000 2.1% Services 126,000 113,000 -10.3% Fuel/Power 3,741,000 4,062,000 8.6% Utilities 15,000 20,000 33.3% Parts 1,336,000 1,428,000 6.9% Other O&M 544,000 481,000 -11.6% Totals $30,166,000 $31,692,000 5.1% Ogden Bus Administration $663,000 4.0 FTE Ogden Bus Operations $19,473,000 197.5 FTE Ogden Bus Maintenance $11,556,000 53.0 FTE Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Ogden Administration 4.0 4.0 - Ogden Operations 208.0 197.5 (10.5) Ogden Maintenance 53.0 53.0 - Totals 265.0 254.5 (10.5) 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 30,166$ (247)$ -$ 848$ 749$ 176$ 31,692$ -$ -$ 31,692$ One-time expenses: Other Increases: 2023 Bargaining signing bonus Fuel Increases: $115k Parts Increases: $13k Service Changes:Other materials and services increases: $45k OGX annualized service: $0.8 million 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Special Svcs Administration $3,187,000 $3,276,000 $89,000 Special Svcs Operations 13,353,000 13,043,000 (310,000) Special Svcs Maintenance 5,815,000 5,987,000 172,000 Vanpool/Rideshare 4,015,000 4,012,000 (3,000) Contracted Services 5,893,000 6,848,000 955,000 Totals $32,263,000 $33,165,000 $902,000 Special Services Administration $3,276,000 33.0 FTE Special Services Operations $13,043,000 135.0 FTE Special Services Maintenance $5,987,000 35.0 FTE Vanpool/Rideshare $4,012,000 11.0 FTE Contracted Svcs $6,848,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $13,743,000 $13,746,000 0.0% Fringe 7,347,000 7,246,000 -1.4% Services 6,051,000 7,014,000 15.9% Fuel/Power 3,235,000 3,241,000 0.2% Utilities 22,000 18,000 -18.2% Parts 445,000 448,000 0.7% Other O&M 1,419,000 1,453,000 2.4% Totals $32,263,000 $33,165,000 2.8% Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Special Svcs Administration 33.0 33.0 - Special Svcs Operations 137.0 135.0 (2.0) Special Svcs Maintenance 35.0 35.0 - Vanpool/Rideshare 11.0 11.0 - Contracted Services - - - Totals 216.0 214.0 (2.0) 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 32,263$ (194)$ -$ 123$ 712$ 261$ 33,165$ -$ -$ 33,165$ One-time expenses: Other Increases: 2023 Bargaining signing bonus Fuel Increases: $103k Parts Increases: $4k Service Changes:Other materials and services increases: $278k Special Services adjustments; $0.1 million 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Light Rail Administration $1,195,000 $1,160,000 ($35,000) Light Rail Operations 20,964,000 21,649,000 685,000 Light Rail Maintenance 20,243,000 21,260,000 1,017,000 Light Rail Sustainability 4,234,000 4,355,000 121,000 Totals $46,636,000 $48,423,000 $1,787,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $25,507,000 $26,060,000 2.2% Fringe 12,907,000 12,918,000 0.1% Services 1,355,000 1,373,000 1.3% Fuel/Power 121,000 110,000 -9.1% Utilities 53,000 53,000 0.0% Parts 12,337,000 12,938,000 4.9% Other O&M 1,712,000 1,666,000 -2.7% Capitalized Costs (7,357,000) (6,695,000) - Totals $46,636,000 $48,423,000 3.8% Light Rail Administration $1,160,000 7.5 FTE Light Rail Operations $21,649,000 205.0 FTE Light Rail Maintenance $21,260,000 117.0 FTE Light Rail Sustainability $4,355,000 37.0 FTE Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Light Rail Administration 6.5 7.5 1.0 Light Rail Operations 205.0 205.0 - Light Rail Maintenance 117.0 117.0 - Light Rail Sustainability 37.0 37.0 - Totals 365.5 366.5 1.0 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 46,636$ (330)$ (32)$ 439$ 1,258$ 452$ 48,423$ -$ -$ 48,423$ Staffing Changes: Other Increases: 2023 Bargaining signing bonus Fuel Increases: $4k Parts Increases: $183k Service Changes:Other materials and services increases: $118k Annualized Increased Saturday Service: $452k 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Com. Rail Administration $566,000 $426,000 ($140,000) Com. Rail Operations 10,424,000 11,112,000 688,000 Com. Rail Maintenance 20,119,000 21,121,000 1,002,000 Totals $31,110,000 $32,660,000 $1,550,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $11,644,000 $12,275,000 5.4% Fringe 5,761,000 5,874,000 2.0% Services 466,000 700,000 50.2% Fuel/Power 9,265,000 9,257,000 -0.1% Utilities 305,000 314,000 3.0% Parts 3,328,000 3,996,000 20.1% Other O&M 841,000 863,000 2.6% Capitalized Costs (500,000) (620,000) 24.0% Totals $31,110,000 $32,660,000 5.0% Commuter Rail Administration $426,000 2.0 FTE Commuter Rail Operations $11,112,000 109.0 FTE Commuter Rail Maintenance $21,121,000 64.0 FTE Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Com. Rail Administration 3.0 2.0 (1.0) Com. Rail Operations 108.0 109.0 1.0 Com. Rail Maintenance 64.0 64.0 - Totals 175.0 175.0 - 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 31,110$ (127)$ -$ -$ 620$ 499$ 32,101$ -$ 559$ 32,660$ Service Changes: 2024 Additions: 2023 Bargaining signing bonus Other Increases: Fuel Increases: $290k Parts Increases: $47k Other materials and services increases: $160k 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Support Maintenance $3,940,000 $4,174,000 $234,000 Facilities 17,450,000 18,798,000 1,348,000 MOW - Systems 17,533,000 17,399,000 (134,000) MOW - Infrastructure 4,262,000 4,076,000 (186,000) Totals $43,185,000 $44,448,000 $1,263,000 MOW Systems $17,399,000 72.0 FTE Facilities $18,798,000 93.0 FTE Support Maintenance $4,174,000 28.0 FTE MOW - Infrastructure $4,076,000 34.0 FTE Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $16,580,000 $16,414,000 -1.0% Fringe 8,376,000 8,567,000 2.3% Services 3,147,000 3,485,000 10.7% Fuel/Power 7,132,000 6,926,000 -2.9% Utilities 4,433,000 5,138,000 15.9% Parts 1,594,000 1,839,000 15.4% Other O&M 2,028,000 2,038,000 0.5% Capitalized Costs (105,000) 40,000 -138.1% Totals $43,185,000 $44,448,000 2.9% Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Support Maintenance 28.0 28.0 - Facilities 91.0 93.0 2.0 MOW - Systems 72.0 72.0 - MOW - Infrastructure 34.0 34.0 - Totals 225.0 227.0 2.0 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 43,185$ (223)$ -$ -$ 994$ 63$ 44,018$ -$ 429$ 44,448$ One-time expenses: 2024 Additions: 2023 Bargaining signing bonus Facilities Service employees 2 FTE for additional stop cleaning: $155k Bus Charger Maintenance Contract and tech training: $275k Other Increases: Fuel Increases: $12k Parts Increases: $23k Other materials and services increases: $63k 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget Office of Communication $4,279,000 16.5 FTE       Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Office of Communication & Marketing $3,962,000 $4,279,000 $561,000 Totals $3,962,000 $4,279,000 $561,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $1,387,000 $1,539,000 11.0% Fringe 613,000 744,000 21.4% Services 1,025,000 1,087,000 6.0% Fuel/Power - 1,000 0.0% Utilities 4,000 5,000 25.0% Other O&M 933,000 903,000 -3.2% Totals $3,962,000 $4,279,000 8.0% Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Office of Communication & Marketing 15.0 16.5 1.5 Totals 15.0 16.5 1.5 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 3,962$ -$ -$ -$ 99$ 68$ 4,128$ -$ 149$ 4,278$ One-time expenses: Other Increases: None Inflation adjustments for contract services and other items Staffing Changes: 2024 Additions: None Communications Social Media Spec: $102k Communications 0.5 FTE Graphics Specialist: $48k 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget      Office of Planning & Engagement $765,000 2.0 FTE Customer Experience $876,000 6.0 FTE Community Engagement $1,635,000 9.5 FTE Customer Service $3,340,000 46.7 FTE Innovative Mobility $12,949,000 5.0 FTE Planning $2,481,000 9.5 FTE Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Chief Planning & Engagement $709,000 $765,000 $56,000 Service Planning 863,000 775,000 -88,000 Planning 2,720,000 2,481,000 -239,000 Community Engagement 1,494,000 1,635,000 141,000 Customer Experience 465,000 876,000 411,000 Customer Service 3,401,000 3,340,000 -61,000 Innovative Mobility 9,164,000 12,949,000 3,785,000 Totals $18,817,000 $22,821,000 $4,004,000 Category FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Wages $4,849,000 $5,345,000 10.2% Fringe 2,300,000 2,531,000 10.0% Services 10,765,000 13,363,000 24.1% Fuel/Power 315,000 446,000 41.6% Utilities 25,000 23,000 -8.0% Other O&M 581,000 1,151,000 98.1% Capitalized Costs -18,000 -38,000 111.1% Totals $18,817,000 $22,821,000 21.3% Department FY 2023 Budget FY 2024 Budget Change Chief Planning & Engagement 2.0 2.0 - Service Planning 5.5 5.5 - Planning 11.5 9.5 (2.0) Community Engagement 9.5 9.5 - Customer Experience 3.0 6.0 3.0 Customer Service 46.7 46.7 - Innovative Mobility 3.0 5.0 2.0 Totals 81.2 84.2 3.0 2023 Budget 2023 One-Time Expenses Staffing Service Wage and Fringe Other 2024 Base 2023 Carry Forward 2024 Additions 2024 Budget Request 18,817$ (830)$ 22$ -$ 388$ 362$ 18,759$ -$ 4,062$ 22,821$ 2023 Additions 2024 Adjustments 2024 Budget One-time expenses: Other Increases: Planning project completions: $0.3 million Other materials and services increases: $0.4 million Ambassador program startup: $0.5 million 2024 Additions: Staffing Changes:South Salt Lake County Microtransit increased service Planner move from Capital Services (partial year adjustment) 2 FTE Planners: $260k People Office Admin $4,350,000 9.0 FTE Talent Acquisition $1,665,000 10.0 FTE HR Business Partner $623,000 5.0 FTE Total Rewards $1,722,000 9.0 FTE Talent Development $1,082,000 8.0 FTE Workforce Tech Training $3,529,000 46.0 FTE Civil Rights $606,000 4.0 FTE      o SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________ Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205( l )(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; §52-4-205(l )(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) if 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; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(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. Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a)the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)the names of members Present and Absent; and (c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature Salt Lake City CouncilDarin Mano November 14, 2023 4 4 44 Darin Mano (Nov 17, 2023 16:04 MST)11/17/2023 Closed Session - Sworn Statement Final Audit Report 2023-11-17 Created:2023-11-15 By:Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAGydJcjrbNdbH3APtWt6qESZJtETHkxnh "Closed Session - Sworn Statement" History Document created by Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com) 2023-11-15 - 0:57:27 AM GMT Document emailed to Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-11-15 - 1:01:09 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-11-15 - 5:12:01 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-11-16 - 6:59:12 AM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-11-17 - 8:05:18 AM GMT Document e-signed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-11-17 - 11:04:43 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-11-17 - 11:04:43 PM GMT Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/8/2023 10:04 Nigel Swaby 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! Nigel My website - www.swabyrealestate.com 11/8/2023 15:45 Anonymous Constituent Excellence in the Community concerts I write to praise excellence in the community concerts, especially Hot House West and other upbeat, happy music groups. It's a wonderful offering to the city and provides locals and visitors good fun and a positive experience. 11/8/2023 15:51 Anonymous Constituent keep the 9th south whale I live near 900 South and at first I thought "how dumb to have a whale sculpture in a desert". But after it was painted such beautiful colors, and as the vegetarian around it grew, I now love this whale! Every time I drive by it makes me happy. 😊 If people need to also place their gnomes there for a little local quirkiness, that's great too. But please express my appreciation to the artist and keep the colorful whale! 11/8/2023 16:42 Diane H. Banks Affordable Housing Incentives – 11/7 Briefing One additional comment—when I listened to the meeting on the 17th, one speaker reflected my thoughts exactly—higher density does NOT mean it will be affordable. In fact, there could be some very expensive higher density that is simply a way for developers to increase expensive density in formerly single family residential neighborhoods. Please don’t confuse density with affordability.11/9/2023 12:01 Michael Fortune Invitation "Project Valor" Helping House Homeless and Transistioning Veterans Thank you so much for the oppurtunity to speak to the Mayor and all the City Council Members, my name is Michael Fortune, I have spoken with some of the Council Members in the past about the idea of our pilot program "Project Valor" helping house veterans all across the State of Utah and END Veteran homelessness. We have continued our efforts and have our FIRST unit in Cache Valley (Providence). We would like to invite you to visit our Boxabl Home and learn more about our plans of taking our program and houses across the State of Utah. If you have any questions please contact me. Thank You... 11/9/2023 15:05 Matt Keane (EXTERNAL) Mayor said she wants Unhoused to feel safe / D6 You want the homeless to feel safe, Erin said so many times over her term but What about the citizens and business owners ? We don’t get to feel protected anymore ? I didn’t feel safe in downtown SLC so I sold my condo and business. When are you going to get it WE NEED MORE COPS and they need to arrest people doing drugs in public - if it was a Frat guy doing it Mendenhall would want him locked up but if you’re homeless “oh we can’t have those statically showing all the crime better just let them be safe” A lot of us living in the city, that have been here longer than ANY one on the council, can see that she/you are using city funds to try to get all council members that give her the green light reelected. Erin is corrupt, an adulterer and really you all just suck so much I’m thinking of moving out of the city where I: grew up, went to grade school , high school, college, then started businesses here, but I feel so unwelcome here now. Your wife yelling at me in my own yard because I disagree was too much - I really hope you lose ! Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, November 6, 2023, 12:04 AM, matt keane <mattatlarge@yahoo.com> wrote: You are just biding your time, lying that you don’t want 4 plexes and will bend over once this election is over, you are a 100% guaranteed stamp for what ever Mendenhall wants. Your council ruined this city, I sold my downtown condo and closed my downtown business due to never ending crime by the homeless. All the time being told by your council “the homeless are not criminals” but I was burglarized several times by the homeless. I cleaned up vomit, extement and worse all because this council DOES NOT CARE ABOUT SMALL BUSINESS !!! Why don’t you move back where you grew up and FIX it ! Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/9/2023 16:45 James Barfuss Great SL Water U can move UR ass back where U came from!!!! The reason why the lake is running dry is U all keep bringing everyone into this state, which is 1 of the driest states in the country!!! That is why the GREAT SALT LAKE is going dry cause of all the homes U all let come in!!! That was all run off going to the lake over the years before U all dammed eveything off!!! QUIT USING WATER FOR UR DAMN LAWNS, an QUIT UR BICHEN about high food costs!!!!!!! YOUR NEXT MEAL IS COMING FROM A FARMER not walmart nor the SALT LAKE, U ALL Starting have been destroying since U all moved in here!!! U ALL CAN KISS MY AZZ, AN U AINT GETTING MY WATER FROM THE BEAR RIVER!!!!!!!!!! AND PS GO FLY A KITE IN A LIGHTNEY STORM!!!! U all NEED to be put on your own island so that U ALL get a good taste of reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11/9/2023 16:48 John Cracroft Support for local Curtis Park Hi, Dan! My name is Jon Cracroft. I'm a long-time district 6 member, born and raised. I live in the Bonneville Hills area, have a young family, and am championing a CIP application for park renovations of our local park, Curtis Park (attached to the west of Foothill Village). I'm wondering if I could get your support for our project? It could be as simple as any or all of the following: • Be named on the application • Help gather community member support, through email, social, or your personal sphere of influence • Sign a letter of support that could be attached to the application. I know you're right in the middle of campaign season, so I've intentionally tried to make this as short and easy as possible knowing you're busy. The CIP application deadline is Dec 15, 2023, otherwise I would have waited until after the campaign. I'd love it if you would be willing to offer your support in any way, please let me know. Thanks! Jon Cracroft 11/9/2023 16:56 Kristina Robb Affordable Housing Initiative Proposal - East Liberty Park Community Organization Response Dear Salt Lake City Council Member and Brian Fullmer, I am writing to you this evening to thank you for the discussion held during your work session yesterday. I can't tell you enough how fully we support the direction you are moving to provide more stratified incentives for affordability in both home ownership and more deeply affordable housing. I wish I was present at the public hearing to make this statement publicly, had I not been sick. Thank you again for the tremendous effort and consideration you are giving to this process. Kindly, Kristina11/9/2023 16:58 Steven Keyser Northpoint Small Area Plan update: Nov. 14 vote Good Afternoon, I previously spoke to planners regarding an error on the northpoint map on our lease property. The planner acknowledged the error and said it would be fixed however I see the same error is still on the online map. The error includes wetland designation along the border of our lease property at REDACTED. The error is apparently an improper designation showing a "green cross hatch layer" that should not be on the map, which causes a green line down the south border of the property (see pic attached). Also, there is no "open space" on this property, it is all zoned BP? Please explain the open space identified on this same parcel on the Northpoint map that has never been identified as open space on any deed or recorded document? These errors will certainly cause problems as we develop the property and need to be removed. I cannot tell from the information in the plan what is being proposed for property such as ours that is already zoned BP. Does this plan suggest the property will be rezoned to something else? I have had no notice of a rezone from BP, so I'm hoping that's not the case as we would file a TRO for emergency relief if that is the case. Regards Steven Keyser Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/9/2023 16:58 James Webster Concern and opposition to CIP Grant: Miller Park ADA Access #8318048 Dan, Public Lands “demolished and completely removed” uriparian retention structures along Red Butte Creek in 2014. PL then admitted that this demolition was a violation of standards of practice as is evidenced by the following: 1. After SLCo Flood Control’s storm retention wall was demolished, serious erosion occurred and Public Lands installed sandbags in place of the retention structure that had been designed by SLCo hydrological engineers in 1987. Public Lands did not consult a qualified hydrologist or Rich White, PE the engineer for Chevron who managed the clean-up as regards demolition of a perfectly functioning storm retention structure. 2. After demolishing the 300’ long lower oath, Public Lands realized access along the Military Dive side had not been addressed by their design team, Biohabitats abs Design Workshop. No means of providing access was ever designated or indicated on the construction documents approved by SLC Engineering and Public Utilities. Then, in violation of these approvals Public Lands as an after though decided to gouge out the footings of a WPA rock wall listed on the national registry, The Living New Deal to realign and replace the lower trail. This unauthorized construction involved the removal of native trees installed along the WPA wall by the seven adjoining residents, including Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin. Our intent was to stabilize the WPA historic wall. As Public Lands followed along the WPA wall they had a second realization, that they were about to trespass into private properties. Rather than admit they had failed to survey park boundaries, Public Lands staff diverted the new unapproved path down a steep slope, again removing native trees installed by Friends of Miller Park. This also violated standards of practice and the unified building code. 3. Public Lands then realized their new upper path would cause additional erosion, and again without any geotechnical or civil engineering input they stacked six additional tiers of timber plus boulders on top of a wall that was designed by MNG in 1987. This wall had been bonded as a requirement of SLC Engineering and Parks. For nine years this pre-existing wall has been arbitrarily and illegally subjected to serious structural jeopardy, and it will fail. Perhaps you can assess the city’s invalidation of bonding requirements? Jim Webster, RLA 11/13/2023 7:39 Cindy Cromer (EXTERNAL) Fw: Affordable Housing on 11/13 Work Session **Attachment 1, 4 pages Dear Council Members, At your Work Session on Affordable Housing last week, one of the topics mentioned briefly was the data prepared by the Mayor's Task Force specific to Salt Lake. Chris Zarek and Josh Green, members of the group, donated their expertise to produce the data in the attachment. There is a huge amount of information---complicated information. Because I anticipate relying on these data in future comments, I want to highlight their importance. Members of the Task Force decided that the proposed changes were unlikely to produce affordable units in low density/high value neighborhoods. The Attachment G: Summary of Proforma and Scenario Analyses begins on page 91 in the link below. The attachment contains the tables without having to scroll through the document. Professional Memo (slcdocs.com) <http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2023/PC04.26.2023/Staff%20Report%20AHI_Att achments.pdf> Sincerely, cindy c. 11/13/2023 9:39 Kim Child Noise in Downtown Hi Julee, There is another event outside the city and county building this weekend. As a resident at The Metro Condos, I find the volume of the music these weekends extremely disruptive. I wish the city would only permit the volume to be at a reasonable level. I shouldn’t be able to hear the thumping with all of my doors and windows closed. -Kim Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/13/2023 10:06 Cindy Cromer comment on the McGillis I speak as someone who worked in the building which now houses McGillis School for over 20 years. I know of no group more qualified to retrofit an historic building. McGillis has already done a fabulous job with an old building, already. Prior to April 1995, churches and schools were permitted uses in ALL residential zones. They were treated the same. Based on the City's decisions about other nonconforming uses such as medical clinics, I don't see why the nonconforming right to use the building as a church has not been extended to a school. Earlier this year, I identified 7 historic churches in jeopardy within Salt Lake City. Certainly the City should welcome a proposal to reuse one of these historic structures. There is the benefit of protecting the embodied energy in the structure while concurrently protecting the community benefit of the structure in the fabric of the neighborhood. It is urgent that the City streamline the adaptive reuse of educational and religious buildings. These uses, conforming when introduced, should not be so difficult to bring into conforming status. 11/13/2023 10:27 Larry Dean (EXTERNAL) Re: News from District Five: November Newsletter 🍂 / D5 Quit talking and studying affordable housing and actually do something about it. The city counsel should be fired due to lack of performance. 11/13/2023 12:29 Alan SERNHOLT Parking in D4 during U of U football games. Nov. 4: Dear Councilwoman Valdemoros, Anytime I have wrote you via e-mail, your office has never responded. You are up for vote in the district but you have said nothing!! Having said that, there is a problem here in District -4 regarding "paid resident parking" during 'University of Utah Football Games" Us resident's pay to the city of SLC a chance to park in front of our house but "we don;t have a driveway "so the illegal parkers take our curbside spaces''. Food for thought, how about SLC negotiate w/the U of U on their impact of resident parking in the residential area-4 day to day?? Regards, alan 11/13/2023 13:05 Jarod Hall 400 N Underpass Howdy Chris I am writing in SUPPORT of an connection between the East and West sides of the freeway at 4th North. I live in the Guadalupe neighborhood about a block from the correction. I believe that I15 has been a huge dividing element of the community and any potential to reduce that dividing effect should be taken. I would imagine if the reverse was proposed and 3rd North was going to be closed than the whole community would be against the additional division in the community. At the last Fair Park Community Council meeting it was mentioned that there might be a effort to try and have a good faith effort to work on a what that connection would look like. If possible I would love to be included in that effort. Thanks Jarod Hall 11/13/2023 16:51 Keiko Jones Housing and Urban Development Dear council members: I am not good at remembering numbers, and I don’t even try. But there are so many apartments that have been built/are being built. It feels like the city thinks it’s a crime to leave any green space in TSA zone. Yet increase in number of housing units hasn’t improved homeless situation. Federal funding for “housing and urban development” doesn’t need to be spent for building more housing. We need to think about something else rather than building more housing. I am not a politician, and my idea may be out of scope, but the city should get together with other cities, counties, and the state, and build a mental hospital that includes drug rehabilitation facilities. Also the funding should be spent to help law-abiding residents to buy homes. We have focused so much on homeless people that I sometimes think the city is neglecting upstanding citizens. And I hope the city will spend some of the money on enforcement to create a clean and safe place for everyone to live. Two sets of rules, one for homeless people; and another for law- abiding citizens, are getting old. Keiko Jones Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/13/2023 16:52 Susan Olson Affordable housing thoughts Dear City Council members, I watched the portion of the November 7 working meeting that concerned the affordable housing incentives. I was impressed by the seriousness and depth of the discussion. I thought Mr. Mano's point that these incentives will not create "deeply affordable" housing, but are intended to induce as much affordable housing as possible from the development community without needing to spend city money was very helpful. Save the money for deeply affordable. I have been having conversations with East Bench friends who are all riled up about the proposed incentives. The tweaks chosen this week to favor owner- occupied housing and keeping existing structures should help reassure such folks a little, but not a lot. The fear seems to be developers will see the most money to be made is in 4-plexes and will eventually buy up all the single-family homes and replace them. I wonder if there is any way to include some maximum number or percentage of lots that could be developed beyond duplexes. Maybe not without violating owners' property rights, but it might be worth exploring. More generally, I think it would help to circulate more widely the sorts of occupations held by people at the levels of AMI incentivized in the proposal. I get the feeling that people ignorantly think that 4-plexes in Yalecrest will be rented by people who have been chronically homeless and suffer from mental illness and substance abuse. More accurate information needs to be presented at every community meeting. Good luck. I support the direction you're going. Susan Olson 11/13/2023 16:54 James Webster News from SLC Council: Housing and Urban Development I’ve offered public comment on Many occasions. You’re not really listening and have completely dismissed your civic responsibility. 11/13/2023 16:56 Maze Nolastname Affordable Housing I'm 65 and live downtown in SLC. Affordable housing as you know is extremely hard to find. As a resident on housing its extremely hard to find one bedroom housing. When you don't have transportation it's harder even if you find what matches your needs. Buying food from a convenient store doesn't help matters. Affordable housing thanks not in Tim buck to helps. Just because we are poor doesn't me we deserve housing away from necessities and in safe neighborhoods. However the top priority should be to help build housing for the homeless. I hear there are many shipping containers that are being used to build housing for the poor and homeless. They are large, and plentiful. They can be used to build large homes, apartments and smaller homes and can can make the building go faster since they are already put together. Just make sure the housing is insulated. We have low income. Sure there are organizations that help with heating and cooling. Yet why waste their resources when they can help others to. 11/13/2023 17:14 Parker LAMBORN Rezoning Historic Home Hello, I've lived in the SLC for 10 years now and I just moved to the Sugarhouse area and I've seen a lot of these beautiful historic homes will be rezoned into big multi-family residential projects in 2157 S Lincon Street. I just want you to rethink that in the past SLC had lost the beautiful historical such as the Victoria Mansion. As I am the interior designer I would like to have reach out to me that I would like to work on this to save our beautiful historic place instead of putting it as a multi-family building. you can reach me at my phone number. Thank you! Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/13/2023 17:52 Cindy Cromer 1/2 notification re changes in contributory status in historic districts Dear Dan- Thank you for setting up a meeting today. I am deeply appreciative. I have spoken publicly 3 times, been rebutted by staff when I couldn't speak, and ignored by about 2 dozen decision makers. When I write "deeply appreciative," I am not exaggerating. The attachment contains documentation regarding my argument that there is no notification regarding a change in contributory status in an historic district. Currently there is not even a process in the ordinance. The proposal before the Council establishes one for the first time. It does not include notification; that is intentional. The Planning Division wants to be able to change the status quickly based on requests from property owners. (There is an expedited process for demolition for dealing with a hazardous building. The issue is not about hazards to the public.) So in order in the attached pdf: -notification requirements which the Council adopted last spring in 21A.10.015 A There is no requirement to notify the community council, property owners within 300 feet, or even abutting property owners. Note that there is a requirement to notify regarding demolitions of contributory structures. If the status of the building changes to noncontributory prior to the request for demolition, then obviously the notification on the request for demolition is a formality. The decision has already been made. -message from the owner of 444 S 700 E indicating that she received no notice in 2022 that the contributory buildings on either side of her building were being considered for change to non-contributory status. The proposal codifies what the staff has been doing. It does not add notification to the process. -staff report from Brian Fullmer describing the issue -my comment at the Council's hearing -a public comment submitted by a resident in Central City to the Planning Commission Why does this matter? -Because the contributory/non-contributory status of a building in an historic district is the core of the City's land use regulation. If the building is non-contributory, then the City will approve its demolition. The requirements for new construction in an historic district are different from those for additions and modifications to contributory structures. I keep saying, "Contributory status is at the core of land use regulation in historic districts." 11/13/2023 17:52 Cindy Cromer 2/2 CONTINUED!! notification re changes in contributory status in historic districts -Because the determination of a building's status is not obvious and requires specific expertise. Even then there are disagreements. In my opinion, the building on the southeast corner of 300 S/600 E retains sufficient features to be considered contributory. Two of the members of the Landmarks Commission agreed with me publicly earlier this month. The building is designated noncontributory as a result of work completed without a permit and is going to be demolished. -Because the Central City Histroic District will be disproportionately affected by the lack of public process due to the City's previous decisions about land use in Central City, the transit corridor on 400 S, and the fact the neighborhood was redlined historically resulting in poor maintenance and less than optimal remodeling of surviving structures. There have been 51 demolitions of contributory structures in the Central City Historic District since 1991. That number has only increased by 1 since the last survey in 2012 because the City now moves the buildings out of contributory status and then approves their demolition. That is exactly what happened to the 2 mid-century buildings on either side of 444 S 700 E last year. I keep saying, "This is about land use regulation and there is no notification." Relentlessly, cindy c. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/14/2023 10:33 Eric VALCHUIS 15th and Bryan Hi Scott and Dan, My name is Eric Valchuis and I live in District 6. I'm writing to request that a crosswalk be striped at this intersection. This intersection was improved last year with new curbing and accessible ramps. It was not improved, however, with striping to indicate that it is a crosswalk. I spoke with Zahnor Edwards, a senior transportation planner, about this and he said that, despite there being no striping, this is indeed a crosswalk. He explained the reason for this is that that the city wants to limit the number of painted crosswalks in the area so traffic can keep moving. There have been numerous times when I've attempted to cross at this intersection and cars have refused to stop for me. Given that drivers do not acknowledge that this is a crosswalk and that UTA has bus stops at this intersection, it seems like striping would be appropriate. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Eric Valchuis 11/14/2023 10:37 Louis Borgenicht Nuclear weapons are a local issue, please sign this letter Dear Council Member Dan Dugan, The horrific war in Israel and Gaza is the latest reminder that the world is a nuclear tinderbox—one bad decision or miscalculation away from nuclear war—and it’s well past time to get serious about getting rid of nuclear weapons. At a time when our communities are grappling with life- threatening security challenges related to housing, jobs, transportation, food, and health care, our federal government is spending enormous amounts of our tax dollars, every hour, every day on nuclear weapons that make us less safe and do nothing to address these and other real-life challenges, in our communities and in the world. And today, the threat of nuclear war is perhaps greater than it’s ever been—threatening all of us, all of humanity. There is a safer path going forward. In late November, the 2nd Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), will be held in New York City. The TPNW is a big deal. Adopted at the United Nations in July, 2017, the treaty bans the use, possession, testing, and transfer of nuclear weapons under international law. To date, 93 countries have signed the treaty and 69 have ratified it. Unfortunately, the Biden administration (like the other 8 countries that possess nuclear weapons) actively opposes the treaty. I think that’s wrong-headed and this is where you come in. Will you please sign this open letter https://preventnuclearwar.org/us-officials-letter-23/ to President Biden urging him to (1) send an observer delegation to the 2nd Meeting of States Parties (2MSP) to the TPNW and (2) to initiate negotiations with all nuclear weapons states toward a verifiable, timebound agreement to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the planet? By signing it you will join a growing chorus of elected officials from around the country who are speaking out for nuclear disarmament and demanding action from Washington. The letter is organized by Back From the Brink (BftB): Bringing Communities Together to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a U.S.-based grassroots coalition of individuals, civil society organizations, and elected officials working together on a multi- year campaign to rid the world of nuclear weapons and secure a set of common sense U.S. nuclear weapons policies that will make the world safer, healthier, and more just. Nuclear weapons are a local issue. Your voice, my voice matter and together we can make a difference. Please sign onto the open letter to President Biden here: https://preventnuclearwar.org/us-officials-letter-23/. Sincerely, Louis Borgenicht 11/14/2023 10:42 Eszter Lazar-Molnar Feedback on Wasatch Hollow Park Hello, asking this as a tax-paying resident living next to Wasatch Hollow park, are there any immediate plans in place to clean up and fix the park before the snow comes? Remove the wood debri from the flooding (yes, it is still there, the grass is probably dead underneath by now), filling in the holes in the ground which are tripping hazards and there is a big one next to the pavilion, close to the playground. It is surprising that the city does not care even though it is unsafe. If this was anybody's yard, it would have been fixed long time ago. Best regards, Eszter Lazar-Molnar Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/14/2023 12:14 Jan Hemming Conflict of interest? Landon Kraczek's nomination to Planning Commission Dan: I noticed that the City Council will consider the nomination of Landon Kraczek to the Planning Commission tonight. My comments are not directed toward Landon as an individual. Rather my concern is if he is approved, two top officers of the Glendale Neighborhood Council — the chair (Turner Bitton) and the secretary (Landon Kraczek) — would both serve together on one of the most powerful and important commissions in the city. Is that appropriate? Is this a conflict of interest? For example, would I as chair of Yalecrest and one of my co-chairs or secretary/treasurer both be allowed to serve on the Planning Commission while maintaining our seats on the neighborhood council? Leaders in two other Salt Lake community councils have also discussed these same issues with me. Both heard that Turner had resigned his Planning Commission appointment because of a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, at last Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting he attended and voted. Could you clarify his status? An even bigger concern is the Planning Commission vacancy in D6 has not been filed. I accidentally discovered that two individuals in D6 with exceptional qualifications in architecture, real estate or financing applied for the D6 vacancy. Both shared this with me months after their applications were sent. Can you provide an update on why the vacancy hasn't been filled? Is there a timeline? Does the city have suitable candidates? The requirements are quite broad. We appreciate the service of Aimee Burrows from D6 on the Commission but would certainly like to see the second vacancy filled. I hope you will have a chance to discuss this with your colleagues before there is a vote. Best, Jan Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/14/2023 13:22 Soren Simonsen 1/3 Please Revise the Map in the Northpoint Small Area Plan Prior to Adoption **Attachment 2 Councilmembers Petro, Puy, Wharton, Valdemoros, Mano, Dugan and Young - There are many good and important elements in the Northpoint Small Area Plan. I am pleased to see the correction with regard to the Blueprint Jordan River, and the addition/expansion of a proposed 300 foot buffer to the Jordan River in the latest draft. I encourage you to adopt the Plan, with one notable and important change. Unfortunately, the current draft retains the Vision Map on page 16 relatively unchanged. This map directly contradicts numerous adopted City policies clearly and carefully outlined in Salt Lake City's Comprehensive Vision & Plan — Plan Salt Lake. I could elaborate on dozens of inconsistencies. For brevity, I will highlight just five key contradictions here: Neighborhoods (Plan Salt Lake, page 17) Initiatives: 1. Maintain neighborhood stability and character. 3. Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives. 4. Support neighborhood identity and diversity. 5. Support policies that provide people a choice to stay in their homes and neighborhood as they grow older and household demographics change. The proposed map directly contradicts each of these strategic initiatives outlined and adopted by the City. It will directly displace hundreds of residents, will destroy one of the most unique rural neighborhoods in Salt Lake City, along with its important and diverse identity and function, and will destroy the intergenerational history of this community. Growth (Plan Salt Lake, page 19) Initiatives: 1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. 4. Preserve open space and critical environmental areas. 7. Work with regional partners and stakeholders to address growth collaboratively. The proposed map directly contradicts each of these strategic initiatives previously outlined and adopted by the City. Transferring development rights would remove the development pressure in this area and put the development more efficiently where infrastructure already exists, and would greatly expand economic development opportunities...in the right places. The proposed future land uses are inconsistent with the priorities and actions of the neighboring jurisdictions of Salt Lake County and North Salt Lake, which have and continue to expand habitat preservation in this ecologically sensitive area. Air Quality (Plan Salt Lake, page 25) Initiatives: 1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 8. Incorporate climate adaptation strategies into City planning processes. 9. Ensure local industries meet stringent environmental standards. The proposed map directly contradicts each of these strategic initiatives previously outlined and adopted by the City. Urban sprawl, including industrial sprawl, is the antithesis of smarth growth and good planning. I shared a book with Nick Tarbet that highlights how compact development, incorporating the use of transferring development rights and limiting sprawl, is one of the MOST important climate planning and adaptation strategies that exists. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/14/2023 13:22 Soren Simonsen 2/3 CONTINUED!! Please Revise the Map in the Northpoint Small Area Plan Prior to Adoption There are no stringent environmental standards in the current draft plan, and developing intensive industrial uses in an ecologically sensitive area is the exact opposite of best practices for environmental standards as outlined by the U.S. Green Building Council, the American Planning Association, and Congress for the New Urbanism, the leading smart planning organizations in the country. Just this morning, the Salt Lake Tribune published a heartbreaking story of the air quality environmental injustices imposed on Salt Lake City's west side for more than a century, and this map will expand and perpetuate this environmental injustice. Natural Environment (Plan Salt Lake, page 27) Initiatives: 1. Preserve natural open space and sensitive areas to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem functions through: - Restoration of natural lands and critical habitat; - Implementation and promotion of best practices in management and stewardship or natural lands; - Restoration of aquatic and riparian corridors and habitats (including daylighting of streams and water corridors); and - Reduction in habitat fragmentation. 2. Protect water quality and supply by: - Preserving and expanding acreage of property critical to watershed protection; - Protecting ground water sources. The proposed map directly contradicts each of these strategic initiatives previously outlined and adopted by the City. The delta area of the Jordan River and shorelands of Great Salt Lake are among the most important, and threatened, parts of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem. The Northpoint Small Area Plan is surrounded on the west and northeast by ecological preserves, and this map represents the epitome of further habitat fragmentation by extending industrial sprawl into this sensitive area. Additionally, the watershed protection of source water and groundwater in the Great Salt Lake shorelands are as critical to wildlife and human health as is the source watershed areas in the Wasatch Mountains. We wouldn't dream of filling our canyons with industrial development. We should not settle for any less for the Great Salt Lake shoreland areas. The tools to protect, preserve and restore this area in the long term are already contained in the Plan. They are just not reflected in the current map. Beautiful City (Plan Salt Lake, page 31) Initiatives: 3. Identify, preserve, and enhance view corridors and vistas, including views of natural lands around and within the City. 7. Reinforce and preserve neighborhood and district character and a strong sense of place. 10. Develop landscapes that reflect our geographic region. 11. Create opportunities to connect with nature in urban areas. 12. Reinforce the development of a connected green network of urban open spaces and forest that accommodates active transportation and provides contact with nature. The proposed map directly contradicts each of these strategic initiatives previously outlined and adopted by the City. The shorelands and habitat areas of the Great Salt Lake are as important vistas as the Wasatch Mountains, as the most character defining geographic features of our region. 11/14/2023 13:22 Soren Simonsen 3/3 CONTINUED!! Please Revise the Map in the Northpoint Small Area Plan Prior to Adoption Harming these vistas with industrial sprawl will do irreparable harm to these landscapes, and will further limit access to important areas for conservation and education, in connection with nature. Finally, Plan Salt Lake contains recommendations for important tools to implement these initiatives of our shared community vision. Page 45 explicitly recommends Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as an important tool, which has been effectively used in communities across the state. Conservative Utah County has adopted TDR in its zoning code to protect natural and cultural resources. Salt Lake City needs and deserves this valuable tool. It is already referenced in the Northpoint Small Area Plan...it is just not reflected as a priority in the Vision Map. And it should be. Please find attached a map that every major environmental organization in Salt Lake City has endorsed or supported as a more effective way to implement Salt Lake City's broad vision in this specific area. I urge you to incorporate this map into the final plan prior to adoption. Thank you - Soren Simonsen Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/14/2023 13:32 Steven Keyser Clarification / Amendment Re Northpoint Plan Dear Salt Lake City Counsel: We are commercial developers and have a lease option on 2601N 2200W (15ac west side of 2200W), currently zoned BP. In July 2020 a conditional use was approved for our Moonlake Farms. Having read the staff reports and Northpoint Plan I have several concerns. 1. Northpoint Map Identifying "open space" around Rudy Canal. The Rudy Canal has not been maintained for over 100 yrs. As such, in certain areas in some spring-runoff, there is temporary flooding of some private property. Repairing the Rudy Ditch walls will eliminate the seasonal flooding. We expect to do this. Any subdivision plat will require a wetlands survey. The survey will conclusively identify any actual wetlands on the property vs property flooded due to the unmaintained Rudy Canal. However, the Northpoint map identifies "open space" next to as-yet unconfirmed wetlands. This is error that could and likely will create confusion and substantial, expensive delays from the SLC planning department when we apply for a subdivision plat. Should planning need clarification when we apply for subdivision, we will see delay. Should planning need Northpoint plat amendments to fix - again, expensive, delay. I can see a situation where our wetland survey identifies no wetlands but planning refuse to proceed until the so called "open space" on the Northpoint map is clarified by SLC counsel. All of this is unnecessary as every subdivision application will require a wetland survey and the survey will identify wetlands, and if they exist, then open space may be created if new code requires. Although, in our case, we are already zoned BP, and adding setbacks to existing zones would seem to create a legal taking issue. Take home: Identifying "open space" on a map where the wetlands have not yet been designated by an actual wetlands survey creates unnecessary problems, costs and delays that are easily resolved by wetland survey, already required by subdivision application. New Open Space designations should be removed from the Northpoint map - particularly around the Rudy Canal. 2. Reading the Northpoint Plan and staff reports, it is entirely unclear what will happen to already commercially zoned BP property. Without clear guidance in the plan, the plan becomes a cloud on the title of every property owner. Adding setbacks to the existing BP zoned property, would seem to be a taking issue. It is unclear from my read if we can apply for subdivision under the existing BP uses, or if the lack of clarification for treatment of already commercially zoned property will simply delay a subdivision application, adding substantial expense and need for clarification when we apply for subdivision application. Absent clarification now, it would seem the Planning Department has no clear guidance on this issue. Take home: clarifying language regarding how existing BP land will be treated is necessary to provide Planning guidance and avoid substantial delay and expense. Will a subdivision application of already zoned BP property be subject to substantial delay and cost until the "new" northpoint BP zone language is adopted? This could take years... Thank you for your consideration Steven Keyser 11/14/2023 13:49 Brenda Koga Funding Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting, but I do feel it is imperative that as much funding as possible, be dedicated to providing housing as well as mental health and training services for the homeless population. I am not sure if there is any funding funneled specifically to providing Social skills training and groups for this population. Housing with supportive services is the key! Brenda Koga Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/14/2023 13:51 Lynn Pershing Appointments to the Planning Commission Good Afternoon City Council Members I write with concern about recent and upcoming appointments to the Planning Commission. I strongly believe in equal representation from each City District on both the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commissions. I note with distinction that D6 position has not been filled for a year, despite 2 applications. Both Turner Bitten (already appointed), and Landon Kraczek (before you for approval tonight, Nov 14) are currently both serving on the Glendale Community Council Board, as Chair and Secretary, respectively. My questions 1. Planning CommissionIs it acceptable to have current Community Council Board members serve simultaneously on the Planning Commission? Is that a conflict of interest? 2. While a City District may be represented by 2 Commissioners (Christensen and Tuttle D1), (Scheer and Gayle D4) is it acceptable to have 2 Board members from the SAME Community Council (Glendale Community Council) serve simultaneously with the same term on the Planning Commission? Could that be considered to be over-representation from 1 specific Community Council of our City? Both Christensen and Tuttle both from D1 and Bree Scheer and Gayle from D4 to my knowledge don’t BOTH serve on the same Community Council and have different term dates. Curious about representation on our City Commissions Lynn K. Pershing D6 11/14/2023 14:45 Diane Whittaker affordable housing Please continue to support only two units on a single family lot and vote against four units per lot. This applies to ALL R1 areas in the city. So many great neighborhoods will be destroyed and made unsafe with this four unit idea and no off street parking. Diane Whittaker 11/14/2023 15:01 Kathy Adams Housing Analyst James Woods presentation 10/10/2023 Utah State of The State of Housing I wouold like to know if there has been any attention paid to the presentation by Kem C Gardner Housing Analyst James Woods on 10/10/23 SC Work Session. The data and financial information presented a solution to the afforable housing crisis which focused on citizens rather than developers and builders. This is not some hairbrain scheme, it has been implemented with great success in Massachusetts and even has an on-going funding plan. I find Woods' solutions to be democratic, compelling and foreward thinking. Please take time to review the video as I have several times and read his study carefully. 11/14/2023 18:39 Kathy Adams James Wood summary on the website is incorrect. Who wrote this summary of Wood's presentation? This is NOT what Wood said at all! https://housing- slcgov.hub.arcgis.com/ State of the State’s Housing Market The Council recently received a presentation from James Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow at the Kem. C. Gardner Policy Institute. The presentation included a few key takeaways: Utah’s economy is strong, and wages are growing. However, homebuilding will likely slow down due to inflation and continued high interest rates. This will worsen the housing affordability crisis as there is not enough housing supply to meet the demand of our growing City. 11/15/2023 9:47 Kathy Adams Nov 14 Housing Meeting Question Sorry this question is so late, but I would really like to know if there has been attention paid to the presentation given by James Woods at the 10/10/2023 Work Meeting. Woods recommended directing resources to the citizens instead of the developers and builder and building industry. His presentation included financial data and solutions that I found very worth investigating. Thank you, Kathy Adams -- Kathy Adams Salt Lake City Utah 8410911/15/2023 9:48 Sally Goodger Housing Connect Comments on Housing Needs 11.14.2023 **Attachment 3 Hello, Attached please find Housing Connect's comments to the Salt Lake City Council regarding the housing and community development needs we have seen in our work as a public housing authority operating in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. We thank the Council for the opportunity to share these comments. Sincerely, Sally Goodger Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/15/2023 9:50 Marsha Thatcher AHI - Affordable Housing Incentives City Council: After reading over the District 6 email news regarding AHI, I find it disturbing that you as members are still pushing and supporting density for our SLC neighborhoods outside of the downtown area. All of us who live in the City do so because we love the feel of the City. We are close to downtown and the University of Utah and other educational institutions, yet we take extreme pride and satisfaction in keeping our neighborhoods beautiful, well-maintained and free from cars lining the streets to park in the residences. Of course there are some cars parked on the streets, but are sparse compared to downtown neighborhoods. We feel very strongly and passionately that our City neighborhoods outside of the downtown area be kept with mostly single family homes. There is no place for 4 plexes in our serene areas. They would crowd the lots, bring many more vehicles to the same size street, and create additional noise by the vastly increased number of people living in these multiple resident places. There are duplexes In our neighborhoods on oversized lots now. We adamantly oppose changing the zoning to adding more than that in our areas. We chose forty plus years ago to live in our neighborhood when we could have easily moved south in the suburbs and had more house for the money. We chose then and would now to have well established, friendly, well maintained single family homes in our area. To keep Salt Lake City a livable city we need to keep dense housing in the downtown area where it belongs NOT expand it out to our single family home areas and send those of us out of them because they become stressful, noisy congested streets which they are not designed for or desired from all of us who live in them. We implore you, as our representatives, to keep multi family structures packed on regular sized lots out of our City neighborhoods. Please keep dense housing downtown or west of the city where there is empty ground. Our city neighborhoods, outside of downtown, deserve the respect and attention from you to keep them liveable, walkable, friendly ones, not congested, stressful, unpleasant places. Salt Lake City is a special place where neighbors work together and watch out for each other. Please don’t change that. Long time Salt Lake City resident, Marsha Thatcher 11/15/2023 9:50 Baylee White HUD General Needs Comments - The Road Home **Attachment 4 Attached are The Road Home's public comments for Salt Lake City's HUD General Needs hearing. We appreciate the Council's consideration of our comments and recommendations. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. Thank you! Baylee White Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 11/15/2023 9:51 Caitlin Fellows HUD Public Comments Submission Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, I would like to submit a public comment on the topic of the 2023-2024 U.S. Housing and Urban Development General Community Development Needs Annual Public Hearing. Our organization had hoped to join the meeting this evening but will be unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts. We are grateful for the opportunity to submit a comment on behalf of the needs of the community we serve for the council's review. Since 1994, the International Rescue Committee in Salt Lake City (IRC SLC) has resettled over 12,000 refugees and has continued to implement high-impact programs to support the successes of refugees and new Americans. IRC SLC works to maintain and bolster over 20 culturally responsive and linguistically accessible programs, including the Digital Inclusion program, which provides opportunities for refugees and new Americans to access digital tools and the skills needed to operate them, in order to positively impact their efforts toward economic stability and upward mobility. The digital divide is one of many challenges facing refugee and new American communities striving for social, economic, and civic success. Digital Inclusion is a community development need that is central to refugee integration. Without essential digital skills, many refugees and new Americans struggle to access virtual healthcare services, apply for jobs, bank online, and so much more. In an increasingly digital world, access to affordable broadband and digital skills are a basic need. Refugee and new American families are disproportionately affected by a lack of access to devices and reliable and affordable internet connection due to the high costs, and language barriers, thus culturally relevant technology access and support are critical for all refugees and new Americans. As a result of IRC SLC’s Digital Inclusion (DI) Program refugee and new American participants gain the knowledge and skills needed to navigate a digital world with confidence. This includes basic digital literacy skills, access to digital tools such as a computer, smartphone, and affordable internet service. The IRC SLC DI Program also fosters safe, enriching learning environments where refugees and new Americans can develop the attitudes, successes, and curiosity needed to be lifetime learners and users of technology. IRC SLC is deeply grateful for the past support provided through CDBG funding made available by Salt Lake City to sustain and expand programming efforts to ensure refugees and new Americans are able to fully navigate life in our city. Year over year, CDBG funding has been made available and prioritized for this purpose, and we look forward to the opportunity to partner with the city again in 2024 to maintain this vital resource for our newest neighbors. If Salt Lake City Council or others have questions about the work of IRC SLC, our digital inclusion program, or would like to connect further, please do not hesitate to reach us by email or by phone1. Thanks, Caitlin Fellows Attachment 1, 4 pages SLC Corp W 2 1 00 N N 4 0 0 0 W Fo x b o r o D r 67 W C en t er S t W 3 300 N N 3 2 0 0 W N Ros e Pa rk Ln N 2 2 0 0 W L e g a c y P k w y W 1 70 0 N W 21 00 N N 3 2 0 0 W N Per im e ter R u d y C a n a l W e s t B r a n c h Ci t y D r a i n J o r d a n R i v e r Recl a m a t i o n D i t c h 215Salt Lake City N o r t h S a l t L a k e SALT LAKE CO. DAVIS CO. Special Conservation Zoning for the Northpoint Small Area Northpoint Small Area Shoreline Heritage Area Primary Sending Area (TDR) Special Conservation Zoning/Secondary Sending Area Jordan River Riparian Buffer Airport Preservation Area North Point Eco- Industrial Area Area of Development Freshwater Emergent Wetland Other Wetland SLCo. - DavisCo. Salt Lake City North Salt Lake Attachment 2 3595 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 www.housingconnect.org O: 801-284-4400 TDD: 801-284-4407 F: 801-284-4406 Reasonable Accommodations: 801-284-4439 On behalf of Housing Connect, I would like to thank the Salt Lake City Council for the opportunity to comment on the housing and community development needs of Salt Lake City residents. Housing Connect, previously the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, is a public housing authority that has operated in Salt Lake County since 1970. We function as an affordable housing developer and property manager for properties around the valley, and also administer rental assistance through programs such as Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) and Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA). Though we serve the whole county, many of our programs operate in Salt Lake City and we have received HOPWA funding from Salt Lake City since 2004. As such, we have seen firsthand the housing needs facing Salt Lake City residents, in particular the need for affordable rental housing, rental assistance, and barrier removal assistance to secure affordable housing. As part of the House Bill 462 in 2022, the Department of Workforce Service (DWS) commissioned the Gardner Policy Institute (GPI) to develop a database of moderate and affordable housing needs and support across Utah. The data showed a deficit for 174,664 households at 60% AMI and below, 106,650 affordable units were available, or 61 affordable units were available for every 100 households, a total cumulative deficit of 68,014 units. There were 35 units available for every 100 households for those with incomes at 50% AMI and below, creating a deficit of approximately 95,586 units for the group. This figure also includes the deficit of 77,140 estimated for those households with incomes at 30% AMI or below. In 2022, only 3 affordable units were available for every 100 households with incomes at 30% AMI and below. The GPI data shows Salt Lake County has the greatest imbalance for the 30% AMI and below population. Housing Connect operates over 3,800 vouchers for rental assistance and over the last few years we have seen both an increased need for vouchers and an increased difficulty in utilizing these vouchers. HCV is Housing Connect’s largest voucher program. Currently 6,776 households are on the waiting list for HCV assistance and the expected wait time for a household to come off the waiting list and receive a voucher is five to six years. On all our rental assistance programs, we are seeing the same trends: rising rents, a lack of affordable units for low- to extremely-low-income households, and a high need for rental assistance to mitigate these obstacles. In addition to our HCV program, Housing Connect operates several programs that serve specific populations paired with supportive services to meet their needs, such as the HOPWA program. The HOPWA program wait list has been holding steady at around 50 households, often more, for the last three years, demonstrating the high need for this program in our community. However, even when a household is brought onto the program from the waitlist, they often struggle to find a unit due to high rents and low vacancy rates throughout the city and county. The average rental assistance payment for the HOPWA program is currently $880 and will likely only rise in the coming year. The HOPWA program provides housing to vulnerable, extremely low-income households in Salt Lake City, enabling them to be better able to afford and maintain medical treatments. It is a vital resource and to meet the needs of Salt Lake City residents, the HOPWA program will require additional funding to support rising rent costs for current program participants and be able to bring new households onto the program. Once again, we extend our deepest gratitude to the Salt Lake City Council for the opportunity to share these comments, and for their continued support of our HOPWA program. We also thank them for the work they do all year long to support important projects that improve the lives of Salt Lake City residents. With gratitude, Janice Kimball CEO, Housing Connect Attachment 3 w w . twh e ro a dh o me . or g 210 S. Rio Grande Street Salt Lake City, UT 84101 1415 S. Main Street Salt Lake City, UT 84115 TEL Administration: 801.359.4142 TEL Development & PR: 801.355.1433 FAX: 801.359.4178 www.theroadhome.org PRESIDENT Pauline Ploquin SECRETARY Christena Huntsman Durham TREASURER Keb Brady EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Michelle C. Flynn BOARD OF TRUSTEES Chris Acton Dustin Allen Peter Chamberlain Angie Cook Connie Crosby Steve Eliason – Emeritus Rick Foster Evan Goldstein Rhonda Greenwood Greg Johnson Sue Mark Lunde Eli McCann Shawn Newell – Emeritus Bronwyn Newport-Bradley Gloria Salazar Charles Stormont Chris Sotiriou Aspen Perry Becky Pickle Nikki Walker James Washington Emily Wegener November 14, 2023 Salt Lake City Council PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5476 Dear Salt Lake City Council, The Road Home appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the 2023-2024 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) General Community Development Needs for Salt Lake City. We know the Council receives ongoing feedback about community needs throughout the year and sincerely appreciate the ability to provide input. Our community is facing unprecedented rates of homelessness and housing instability due to ever increasing rental rates and low vacancy across Salt Lake City. The HUD funding included in this public hearing is dedicated to serving a variety of needs, all of which are necessary to helping low-income families and individuals access critical services and supports throughout the year to increase their self- sufficiency. We would highly recommend that the Council consider prioritizing homeless services as it has in recent years, including operational funding for homeless resource centers and street outreach programs, housing assistance for literally homeless households, and supportive services, including case management, for households experiencing homelessness or in housing programs. These are eligible activities within CDBG, ESG, and HOME regulations and are crucial to ensuring we can help stabilize some of our community's most vulnerable households, reducing the trauma associated with experiencing homelessness. Affordable housing development is another critical priority for the Council's consideration, as there is a substantial lack of housing units available in Salt Lake City for those at or below 40% of Area Median Income (AMI). Both of these areas align with the objectives outlined in Housing SLC, Salt Lake City's plan to guide housing-related efforts over the next five years. Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations and input - we know as the Council, you must balance a number of competing needs and interests across Salt Lake City with this funding and appreciate your dedication to helping our community end homelessness. Sincerely, Michelle C. Flynn Executive Director The Road Home Attachment 4 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/11/2023 12:24 Carl Sith Bad Development This development and your willingness to push it through makes me not trust you. I've lived in district 1 for over 50 years. Have degrees in Poli Sci and Econ. I've worked on gubernatorial, legislative, and local legislative campaigns, and worked at the National League of Cities in DC. I know good economic policy and took a course in city planning from Ted Wilson. I have a core of friends that live in Rose Park and Fairpark. Another development that was considered initially without parking. A huge monstrosity by the Jordan River trail. Outrageous. I don't think you have our interests at heart here. I know most of the leaders of the wards around my area and they take my word... and spread it. They have taken my word before on a certain former Mayor. Other close friends moved throughout the city over time. Convince me. I see no benefits. Carl Smith Fairpark Constituent 10/12/2023 10:36 Anonymous Constituent 754 S. State Rezone I believe that an update should be provided on the status of this rezone. In past meetings it seemed like the rezoning was moving at a consistent pace but now it seems to have stalled. Hearings have been held and comment gathered, the request for this rezone was filed almost a year ago. Why is there no progress on a formal decision? I work in the viscinity of this lot and my industry would benefit greatly from an urban hospital on this block.10/13/2023 15:57 Beth Blattenberger lack of digestible information Could you please, please, please provide information in an easy-to-read-and-understand way that makes clear what would happen where? The summary does not give a clue to what would happen in my neighborhood. What are the criteria for allowing 4-pleses and other multi-family units? Does faster permitting mean it's harder for neighbors to provide timely comment? Are there any design guidelines? What is being done to preserve the historic character of some neighborhoods? It should be easy to get answers to these questions. It is not.10/13/2023 16:07 Jon Liddle Affordable Housing I want affordable housing too. Produce and preserve make sense but have concerns about the direction the City is heading. Two points: 1 - Eviction is not a displacement. Its an inability to pay what the homeowner wants to charge. When the government tries to take over the market, its never good. 2 - Rent stablization sounds like rent control. Do not use tax dollars to fight what is an market problem. Increase the supply by approving housing projects as you have been in Sugarhouse, downtown, North Temple, and along trax lines. Smart! Imposing new forms of rent control should not be an option. 3 - Do not allow townhouses or 4 unit buildings in single family zones. 10/15/2023 9:19 Aaron Benson Affordable housing initiative I am writing in support of the new affordable housing initiative. SLC doesn't have enough housing, and upzoning, or easing restrictions on what kinds of housing can be built throughout the city, is the only way to incentivize enough development to bring down prices. I especially appreciate the change to allow more dense housing in R1-zones neighborhoods. Recent experience in Minneapolis and Houston demonstrates that upzoning residential neighborhoods can have a significant effect on mitigating home and rental prices. Thank you for considering simple, appropriate, and effective changes that can benefit our city. Please be mindful in the future that increasing density requires concomitant increases in transit options. 10/16/2023 9:34 Bradlley Christian Email from constituent I would even go so far to think that the city counsel members and mayor of salt lake City to be required to be Mormon. Also I might even go on to say that the governor of Utah should be a moron along with the state legislative members and the judges of the Utah state courts. But since that would be illegal here in the United States of America I guess the state of Utah would be in the wrong according to the federal law. 10/16/2023 10:54 Benjamin LaRiviere I support the affordable housing incentives proposed I wanted to submit a comment in support of the proposed affordable housing incentives. I think that we need more housing and single family neighborhoods would benifit from having more missing middle housing. All of the policies proposed seem reasonable. Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/16/2023 15:01 Anonymous Constituent I Cant Invest in My Future Generations before me were able to work hard, and turn that hard work into something that could build them generational wealth. The long hours they put in paid off and they could buy homes and build equity. My generation is unable to do so. I am a single 30 year old with a Masters degree, making considerably more than both my parents did at my age. I work hard, continute to my community, have a good credit score and make smart financial choices. However, in the current market I still cannot afford to own even the most modest home. I am disheartened to see that my hard work cannot even come close to affording me a basic two bedroom apartment on my own. Utah is a beautiful place that generations of my family have worked hard to develop, raise families and build communities in. It is devestating to think I might have to leave it just to affird to live. Something needs to be done. so that hard working, contributing members of my generation can acheieve the American dream. 10/16/2023 17:03 Donald Shane Sadler Affordable housing We have enough housing units in Salt Lake City. There is never any talk of how water is going to be provided. Also for some reason it has been deemed a good idea to get rid of most of the two-lane roads in favor of "bike lanes and wider sidewalks". I guess those that make those decisions believe that all the new people who would move in are not going to have cars. Let some other city take on some of the responsibility for affordable housing and for the homeless. Would like to see it all out and finished. Shane Sadler 10/16/2023 21:04 Nao Magami 2002 Sal Lake Olympics.Hello My name is Nao Magami I was involved in 1998 Nagano Winter Olympics and 2002 S.L. Winter Olympics. I have 33 unused Opening ceremony ticket and 32 unused Skate tickets and some Nagano Olympics tickets. My Artist Friend Janet Manalo ( 3D sculptor) and I would like to create a sculpture of Olympic Memory with those tickets and we would like to donate it to S.L. City. If you display it at the City Hall for good. Please let me if you are interested. Thank you Nao Magami10/17/2023 8:47 Daniel Echeverria Rose Park Ln annexation Just a quick note about Rose Park Lane and the Hunter Stables development. I’m not sure if this is something that’s already thought about, or not, but I wanted to be sure to say it. Regardless of where the Hunter Stables developer ends up running their sewer line from, it ought to be mandatory that they install a sewer line large enough that whatever happens in the future to the north of them on Rose Park Lane can tie into that line without having to dig it up and replace it. Please let me know whether or not this is something that would normally be considered prior to approving such a project, and if you can bring this information to the city council members on our behalf. Thank you, Eric Porter 10/17/2023 9:13 David Leta Affordable Housing Incentives ** attachment 1 Members of the City Council: I am submitting the attached comments on behalf of the East Bench Community Council. There are two additional points I'd also like to make. First, adoption of this proposal for properties now zoned as "single family housing," is likely, over time, to result in a reduction of single family home ownership. This result is not desirable for a healthy, liveable city. Second, to the extent adoption of this proposal results in a reduction in the value of single family homes, it may constitute a government "taking" of property, like a condemnation, for which the government could be required to compensate the homeowners. We urge you to not adopt the AHI, as currently proposed. Thank you. David Leta, East Bench Community Council Board Member and 2nd Vice Chair Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/17/2023 16:05 Jen S Oscarson Affordable Housing-East Bench Hello, I will not be able to attend the informational meeting tonight as I have to try and save our school from being closed. That said I question: 1. What will the 4plexes do for neighborhoods that are historic districts? Are we able to tear down and rebuild or would we just be able to reconfigure our current homes? 2. As far as income restrictions-if left to the developer why wouldn't they make all the units market under the scenario presented? a. The AHI plan grants developers the right to determine how many and what percentage of AMI low income tenants will be allowed in their projects-seems to me as a developer of these small units (unless developers group sites together for a larger development) there would be little to no incentive to build affordable. I want more families to be able to live in Salt Lake and want to see this program work. I am confused on the implementation and how this will allow for more affordability? Thanks, Jen Oscarson 10/17/2023 16:08 Lisette Gibson Changing SF Zoning on Affordable Housing Incentives? DON'T VOTE YET - PLEASE READ Hello Councilmember Dugan and other Council Members, My husband and I have been residents of Salt Lake City for 35+ years. I urge you to DELAY VOTING on any issues that impact CHANGES to the UNDERLYING ZONING of SINGLE FAMILY Neighborhoods. Anything this critical and important should be EXPLAINED to residents of Salt Lake City in smaller group settings. I would bet most residents don’t know anything about this issue and will be blindsided if Townhouses or Cottage developments are allowed to be built in their neighborhoods. These structures belong downtown or in outlying areas. All of Salt Lake City’s neighborhoods are unique, special and a safe haven from the busyness of everyday life. I would bet they all contain many duplexes that are currently affordable. My neighborhood has 52. We don’t need additional townhomes. Multistory housing is being built all over Salt Lake City and allowing a few townhomes into Single Family areas won’t help the housing problem. It will only harm the character and Stability of our precious neighborhoods. I have been a community activist for years and have to admit I have not yet read the 89-page document referenced on this issue. I haven’t had the time and would like the City to provide highlights, an outline of the proposal or hold small meetings with Q&A time. We need these smaller events where the vision of the plan can be explained to everyone. This has been done in years past. Thank you for considering my comments. Lisette Gibson Salt Lake City Resident, 84108 Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description 10/17/2023 16:10 Paula Harline Please vote against the AHI As long as the AHI promotes the elimination of single-family zoning, please vote against it. The August 7, 2023 "Letter of Transmittal" to the City Council by Blake Thomas, Director of the Department of Community and Neighborhoods, shows clear evidence that our City leaders are ignoring the pleas of neighborhood councils throughout the City and are instead listening to developers. As part of the required public process, Planning staff visited neighborhood councils throughout the City where they heard the same concerns over and over. According to the meeting summaries in the letter, no residents made positive comments about the proposed zoning changes and all voiced significant worries. They are concerned about • • • 3-4 unit buildings blocking views and destroying neighborhood character; • • • • surprise changes to neighborhoods, such as sudden home demolitions; • • • • lack of parking; • • • • non-resident and out-of-state property developers and owners who don’t live in or care • about the neighborhood; • • • • “affordable housing” that isn’t affordable, and thus, doesn’t help solve the problem; • • • • zoning changes that should be tried out as a “smaller pilot program” first, rather than • as a City-wide experiment. • By comparison, the letter also summarizes the needs of “several affordable housing developers” who met with planning staff “to discuss issues and obstacles to building affordable housing in the community and how zoning may be able to address them.” Note that developers have pushed zoning changes to make their work easier and profitable. According to developers, • • • They want “by-right processes,” meaning that zoning would be in place that allows them • to build without getting “discretionary approval” for new builds, eliminating neighborhood discussion about change; • • • • They want “form-based zoning districts,” meaning they want to build a simplified fourplex • facade that could be built anywhere, without regard for differing land uses; • • • • They want to change the “density limits” in single-family home (RMF) districts because • those limits make “development difficult,” and in fact, they asked for incentives that would “encourage smaller developers to construct units in single-family zoning districts”; • • • • They want “parking reductions”; • • • • They want incentives which would allow them “to construct more units.” • A simple comparison between neighborhood concerns and developer concerns shows that City leaders have prioritized developers' voices. I believe it's your job to stand up for neighborhoods, not developers.10/17/2023 20:21 Justin Butterworth Affordable Housing Council Comment/Formal Meeting hi, for some reason my device will not let me speak. Affordable Housing Council feel we can an will raise funds ongoing for Affordable Housing projects. Justin Butterworth. 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.