HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/02/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
March 2,2021 Tuesday 2:00 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation.
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
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.
Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined.Item start times and
durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated:10:08:30
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination
that conducting the City Council meeting at a physical location presents a
substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the
anchor location.
The Salt Lake City Council Chair has determined that conducting a meeting at an anchor
location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to
the health and safety of those who may attend in person.For these reasons,the Council
Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building and all attendees
will connect remotely.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel
most comfortable.If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings,they are
available on the following platforms:
•Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
•YouTube:www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live:www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or
general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect
through Webex,or if you need call-in phone options,please visit our website or call us at
801-535-7607 to learn more.
As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment,please call us or send us an
email:
•24-Hour comment line:801-535-7654
•council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at:www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
We welcome and encourage your comments!We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and
voicemail,as always,to receive and share your comments with Council Members.All agenda-
related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the Council
Members and added to the public meeting record.View comments by visiting the Council
Virtual Meeting Comments page.
Work Session Items
1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,
including but not limited to:
•COVID-19,the March 2020 Earthquake,and the September 2020 Windstorm;
•Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness;
•Police Department work,projects,and staffing,etc.;and
•Other projects or updates.
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.Informational:State Legislative Briefing ~2:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed by the Administration about issues affecting the City that may
arise during the 2021 Utah State Legislative Session.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 12,2021;Tuesday,February 2,2021;Tuesday,February 9,2021;
Tuesday,February 16,2021;and Tuesday,March 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
3.Ordinance:Text Amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family
Residential Zoning District Follow-up ~2:50 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal to amend the RMF-30 (Low Density
Multi-Family Residential)Zoning District and corresponding sections of Salt Lake City’s Zoning
Ordinance.The changes aim to remove zoning barriers to multi-family housing developments in
RMF-30 zoned areas of the City.Proposed changes include:
1.Introducing design standards for all new development;
2.Allowing the construction of new building types including sideways row houses,cottage
developments,and tiny houses;
3.Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit;
4.Removing lot width minimum requirements;
5.Allowing more than one primary structure on a lot;
6.Granting a density bonus for the retention of an existing structure;and
7.Introducing a lot width maximum to discourage land banking.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,September 1,2020 and Tuesday,March 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,September 1,2020 and Tuesday,March 2,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,October 6,2020;Tuesday,October 20,2020;
and Tuesday,March 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
4.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~3:35 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are
working on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include
issues of community concern about race,equity,and justice in relation to law enforcement
policies,procedures,budget,and ordinances.Items may include:
•An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;
◦Discussion with some of the Commissioners on the Youth Subcommittee;
◦A presentation of training recommendations for the Police Department;
•Other project updates or discussion.
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
5.Tentative Break ~4:20 p.m.
20 min.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -n/a
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
6.Informational:Public Art Portfolio Maintenance Study ~4:40 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about the Public Art Portfolio Maintenance Study,including the
goals,outcomes and next steps in the process.The study updates the inventory of City-owned
art and assesses the condition of artworks to identify repairs and ongoing maintenance
recommendations.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,March 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
7.Ordinance:2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan ~5:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will be briefed about the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan.Some
major changes in the proposed plan include adjustments to how the City chooses lighting in
public spaces based on pedestrian activity and transportation needs,as well as identifies new
street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,March 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -TBD
Hold hearing to accept public comment -TBD
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
8.Informational:Small Cell Wireless Facilities ~5:30 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will be briefed about the legal frameworks governing small cell wireless facilities
in the public right of way.The Council may also discuss potential policy directions to regulate
placement and design of these facilities.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,March 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
9.Board Appointment:Library Board –David Wirthlin ~6:00 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview David Wirthlin prior to considering appointment to the Library
Board for a term ending June 30,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,March 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 2,2021
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 _____________________,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.
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.
www.slcpd.com | @slcpd
www.slcpd.com | @slcpd
www.slcpd.com | @slcpd
Community liaison offiCer
Det. Eldon Oliver
385-549-9262
eldon.oliver@slcgov.com
www.slcpd.com | @slcpd
Lt. Russ Amott
801-381-8810
russell.amott@slcgov.com
Cpt. John Beener
801-514-0002
john.beener@slcgov.com
DistriCts 1, 2
Council Members Rogers and Johnston
Community liaison offiCer
Det. Bob Norgaard
801-535-3012
robert.norgaard@slcgov.com
www.slcpd.com | @slcpd
Lt. Andy Leonard
385-228-0472
andrew.leonard@slcgov.com
Cpt. Lance VanDongen
801-799-3807
lance.vandongen@slcgov.com
DistriCts 3, 4
Council Members Wharton and Valdemoros
Community liaison offiCer
Det. Nate Meinzer
801-799-3625
nathan.meinzer@slcgov.com
www.slcpd.com | @slcpd
Lt. Gary Trost
801-799-3211
gary.trost@slcgov.com
Cpt. Rich Lewis
801-799-3355
richard.lewis@slcgov.com
DistriCts 5, 6, 7
Council Members Mano, Dugan and Fowler
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: March 2, 2021
RE:Text Amendment: RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential Zoning District
PLNPCM2019-00313
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing 1: Sept 1, 2020
Briefing 2 March 2, 2021
Set Date: Sept 1, 2020
Public Hearing 1: Oct 6, 2020
Public Hearing 2: Oct 20, 2020
Public Hearing 3: March 16, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
NEW INFORMATION
Last fall the Council started a review of proposed changes to the RMF-30 zoning district. The intent of
the proposed changes is to allow for multi-family housing that would be compatible in size and scale
with existing buildings in areas zoned RMF- 30. These proposed changes are based on research done
by the Planning Division that determined current zoning standards in the RMF-30 does not allow for
multi-family developments – three or more units – on an average size lot in the district.
The key changes include:
1. Introducing design standards for all new development
2. Allowing the construction of new building types including sideways row houses, cottage
developments, and tiny houses
3. Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit
4. Removing lot width minimum requirements
5. Allowing more than one primary structure on a lot
6. Granting a density bonus for the retention of an existing structure
7. Introducing a lot width maximum to discourage land banking
In addition to this work session briefing, at the direction of the Council Chair, a public hearing has
been set for March 16. Postcards were sent to all properties zoned RMF-30, notifying them about the
work session briefing and the public hearing.
Page | 2
During the September 1, 2020 work session briefing much of the Council discussion focused on how
this petition could lead to needed increase in density and housing, but it could also lead to the
demolition of existing housing stock that may be considered more naturally affordable than the units
that would replace them. General support for the proposed changes were expressed because the
zoning changes would potentially facilitate more housing; however, many Council Members were
hesitant to move forward until the updates to the residential housing loss mitigation ordinance are
finalized.
During the October 2020 public hearings, commenters expressed concerns that the proposed changes
will lead to the loss of affordable housing and requested the Council hold off on adopting the
ordinance until an updated residential housing loss mitigation plan is adopted.
In December, the Council held a comprehensive housing and planning petition briefing that included
the RMF-30 zoning amendments. The goal of that briefing was to help link together the many zoning
petitions related to housing so that they could be considered with a “big picture” policy context. [See
Attachment A] During that presentation, Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) staff
explained review of the residential housing loss mitigation plan will be part of the gentrification study
that will commence in spring 2021. Based on the Council’s previous hesitation to move forward with
the RMF-30 proposal until the housing loss mitigation ordinance is finalized, the timeline could be at
the end of the year at the earliest.
FOLLOW UP BRIEFING
The goal of this work session briefing is to support the Council in a discussion about the related policy
questions, review public input, and consider options for next steps with this petition.
The outline for discussion points includes the following:
1. Policy questions for consideration
2. Review public input
3. Potential options for next steps
1. Policy Questions for Consideration
During various discussions about this issue, many points and policy questions have been
raised by Council Members, City staff, and the public. The potential policy questions outlined
below are meant to help facilitate a discussion that could help provide a better understanding
of how some priorities and goals are competing as a result of this issue, and help the Council
arrive at a decision on how it wants to move forward.
Would these changes sacrifice short term goals of preserving existing, naturally
occurring affordable housing in favor of long-term goals of adding to the overall
housing supply to meet future population growth demands?
Are adding density and preserving existing housing stock mutually exclusive goals?
o Is simply adding density more valuable than persevering older existing units?
o Is it possible to add density to create more units, while preserving existing
housing?
Page | 3
Is the Council comfortable adopting this ordinance without having a housing loss
mitigation plan in place?
o Would the Council be more comfortable taking action after the housing loss
mitigation plan in place? (note the timeline mentioned above)
o How may the upcoming affordable housing overlay affect these changes and/or
address the concern about density versus affordability?
Does the City know how many lots may be developable if the proposed amendments
were adopted?
Are there other incentives that could encourage preservation of existing housing?
o Might other City departments be engaged to brainstorm incentives?
Are there incentives that could be provided to create replacement affordable units for
those that are demolished to make way for new development?
Are there specific provisions that could be removed for now and adopt the rest of the
proposed changes?
o Staff heard feedback from community members the following provisions of the
zoning amendments are of specific concern because they feel these changes will
lead directly to the loss of existing affordable housing:
Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit
Removing lot width minimum requirements and adding a lot width
maximum
However, eliminating these provisions would remove key changes leading to
more housing development. It is anticipated not much development would
occur without including the provisions in the ordinance.
Could a density bonus be used as an incentive to create more affordable housing if
current units are planned for demolition?
o For example, a maximum height or density could be established; then, if a
developer commits to providing affordable housing units in the new development,
they could receive a density bonus that would allow them to go above the max
height and/or density maximum.
Is it easier to build affordable housing or preserve it?
o In November 2020, the Gardner Policy Institute released the report titled,
Housing Affordability: What Are Best Practices and Why Are They Important?
(Attachment B). In that report, they identified five best practices for meeting
housing affordability challenges.
One of the best practices identified was Preservation of Affordable Housing. Page
8 of the report states:
The preservation and rehabilitation of existing affordable units typically
cost, at least, 40% less than the cost of new affordable rental units.
Page | 4
Preservation avoids the high development costs of new construction and the
neighborhood opposition (Nimbyism) associated with developing new units.
2. Public Comments
The Council heard from many individuals about this zoning amendments. Many of these
comments are reflected in the Policy Questions for Consideration outlined above. Comments
generally included the following:
Requests for the Council to wait until the residential housing loss mitigation plan is
updated and adopted before moving forward with the proposed amendments to the
RMF-30 zoning district.
Some support for the concept, but requests for the Council to postpone action until the
Affordable Housing Overlay is adopted to ensure existing affordable units are preserved
or the right mitigation policies are in place.
Concerns this may lead to loss of existing affordable housing in favor of more market
rate units.
How does the City plan to help tenants who are displaced resulting from
redevelopment of the homes they currently live in.
Simply getting more units is only one part of the housing problem.
o Need to preserve existing affordable housing/units
Concerns this zoning amendment is tantamount to a rezone and it was not properly
noticed.
o Staff note: Postcards were sent to all properties zoned RMF-30, notifying them
about the March 2 work session and March 16 public hearing.
Concerns this will have a big impact on the Historic Districts. A request was made for
the Council to send this back to the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) to review
the proposed changes.
o Staff notes: This was presented to the HLC on May 2, 2019.
Page 74 of the Planning Commission staff report outlines the comments
provided by the HLC. Those comments included:
Two parking spaces per unit is too high for cottage developments
Parking can drive an entire development – on the cusp of radical
change in terms of living
preferences and parking
May utilize a shared parking arrangement in between buildings on a
site
Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) isn’t always a bad
material – can be getting into the minutia by regulating EIFS
Page | 5
Stucco, Hardie plank, Hardie lap and any cementitious siding can
work well
Existing building envelopes, especially in terms of scale and form,
should be maintained
Side oriented row houses can have a negative impact on adjacent
neighbors
Side oriented row houses should have smaller side yard setbacks than
10’ and 10’
New driveways too close to property lines can have negative impact on
historic homes
Generally, in favor of tiny house forms
Unit bonus shouldn’t create an explosion of housing as some might
think.
3. Potential Options for Next Steps
Adopt the zoning amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Amend the proposed ordinance to address concerns about the potential loss of current
housing units.
o Identify if there are specific provisions that could be removed for now and adopt
the rest of the proposed changes once the housing loss mitigation plan is
finalized.
Postpone adoption until either the housing loss mitigation plan is adopted and / or the
affordable housing overlay is adopted.
Adopt the ordinance and include a legislative intent, requesting the Administration
speed up the process to rewrite the housing loss mitigation plan, or forward an interim
recommendation to bridge the gap until the gentrification study is finalized.
The following information was provided for the October 20 public hearing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
PUBLIC HEARING #1 Summary
During the October 6, 2020 public hearing, a few people spoke about the proposed text amendment.
Additionally, many written comments requested the Council hold off on adopting the ordinance until
concerns that the proposed changes will lead to the loss of affordable housing have been addressed.
Council Members Wharton, Mano and Fowler met with some of the constituents who expressed the
most concern about the potential impacts of these changes to the city’s existing housing stock. Based
on that discussion, Council Members felt it was possible to move forward with many of the
recommended changes in the proposed ordinance and asked staff to work with the constituent to
outline those changes and provide that list to the Council for consideration. At the time of this public
hearing, staff is still working on this follow-up work.
Page | 6
Additionally, Council Staff has noted there are quite a few land use petitions before the Council that
have an impact on the City’s housing policies. And, the Council is anticipating a few other housing
related petitions in near future. These zoning amendments propose changes which are likely desired
since their intent is to create more housing opportunities in the City; however, they also have the
potential to create long term, significant impacts to neighborhoods and Citywide. When considered
separately, these proposed amendments may not appear to create significant changes to City housing
policy; however, when these are viewed together, the potential significant impact is much more
apparent.
The Council Chair directed staff to work with the administration to set up a briefing for a future work
session to go over all these issues pertaining to housing. The goal of the briefing is to link these
proposals together and consider them with a “big picture” policy context.
The administration said they would gladly participate in this briefing. It will be scheduled for one of
the remining work sessions meeting this year.
Therefore, staff recommends the Council postpone adopting the ordinance after the second public
hearing. The recommended motions include:
close the public hearing and defer action
continue the public hearing
The following information was provided for the October 6 public hearing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
WORK SESSION SUMMARY
During the September 1 briefing, much of the Council discussion focused on how this petition could
lead to needed increase in density and housing, but it could also lead to the demolition of existing
housing stock that may be considered more naturally affordable than the units that would replace
them.
Many Council Members expressed support for the proposed changes but were hesitant to move
forward until the updates to the mitigation of residential housing loss ordinance are finalized.
Housing and Neighborhood Development staff participated in the briefing and said it’s likely they will
need to hire a consultant to get that ordinance completed.
The Council decided to move forward with the public hearing to get feedback from the public on the
proposed amendments.
The public hearings were set for October 6 and 20.
The following information was provided for the September 1 work session. It is
provided again for background purposes.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Page | 7
The Council will be briefed about a proposal that would make amendments to various sections of the
Salt Lake City Code relating to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi- Family Residential Zoning District and
corresponding sections of Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Division determined current zoning standards in the RMF-30 do not allow for multi-
family developments – three or more units – on an average size lot in the district; therefore, they
recommended multiple amendments to allow for multi-family housing that would be compatible in
size and scale with existing buildings in areas zoned RMF- 30.
Proposed amendments include:
8. Introducing design standards for all new development
9. Allowing the construction of new building types including sideways row houses, cottage
developments, and tiny houses
10. Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit
11. Removing lot width minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum
12. Allowing more than one primary structure on a lot
13. Granting a density bonus for the retention of an existing structure
14. Introducing a lot width maximum to discourage land banking
The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the Council.
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS
A short outline of the proposed changes is provided below. Please see the Transmittal Letter (pages 5-6)
and the Planning Commission staff report (pages 6-10) to see greater detail the proposed amendments.
1. Design Standards
Design standards for new construction are intended to utilize planning and architecture
principles to shape and promote a walkable environment in specific zoning districts, foster
place making as a community and economic development tool, protect property values and
assist in maintaining the established character of the city.
2. New Building Forms in RMF-30
In addition to single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings, etc., the City
would like to encourage three specific housing types or forms in the RMF-30 zoning district
that may allow for slightly higher unit counts, but are also compatible in mass and scale
with existing development areas zoned RMF-30.
o Cottage Development - consist of two or more detached dwelling units, where
each unit appears to be a small single-family home, arranged around common
green or open space.
o Side oriented row house - entries of single-family attached units facing the side
of a lot as opposed to the street are difficult to build in any zoning district because
code currently does not allow lots without public street frontage.
o Tiny houses - are limited by building code to 400 square feet maximum in area
excluding lofted space.
A tiny home differs from a detached ADU as they are more limited in size
and would not have to be owner occupied or associated with a single-family
home.
3. Reduced Lot Area Requirements
Currently, the RMF- 30 zone permits one multi-family unit per every 3,000 square feet of
land (must have at least 3 units to have a multi-family building or 9,000 square feet of
land).
Page | 8
o Considering about half of existing lots in the RMF-30 zone fall between 3,000 and
6,000 square feet, these lots couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single-
family home
The 3,000 square foot requirement for multi-family units (14 units per acre) is proposed to
be reduced to 2,000 square feet (21 units per acre)
o The Central Community Master Plan, where the majority of the RMF-30 properties
are located, calls for 10-20 units per acre in areas that have been designated as Low
Medium Density Residential, which represents the RMF-30 district.
o The Sugar House Master Plan designates RMF- 30 areas as Medium Density
Residential, which calls for 8-20 units per acre
4. Removal of Required Lot Width
Minimum lot widths would be removed.
The current ordinance requires lots be a certain width for different land uses.
o Multi-Family Residential (RMF) zoning districts are required to be at least 80-100
feet wide to accommodate a new multi-family use (3 or more housing units).
o These requirements do not reflect the established lot width patterns in the RMF-30
district with an average lot width is 58 feet and where more than half of existing lots
are less than 50 feet wide.
5. Allow more Than One Principal Structure on a Lot
Allow multiple buildings on a lot to encourage more efficient and creative developments,
provided that the additional structures meet all other zoning/city department standards.
6. Unit Bonus for the Maintenance of Existing Structures
A unit bonus is being proposed when housing is retained to encourage maintaining existing
housing that may be considered more affordable.
o One bonus unit will be granted for the retention of a single-family home or duplex
o Two bonus units will be grated for the retention of multi-family buildings (3 or
more units).
7. Lot Width Maximum
A lot width maximum is proposed that would limit the widths of new lots to 110 feet wide or
less in order to minimize of collection of multiple parcels or “land banking” to
accommodate large developments.
POLICY QUESTIONS:
Many of these amendments have been highlighted in previous discussions as ways to removing barriers to
adding housing of different types in the City, with an overall policy goal of increasing affordability in the
City. However, there are also concerns about removal of existing or historic structures, which may provide
naturally affordable housing currently.
1. There have been community concerns expressed that the amendment will incentivize more
demolition of existing buildings.
Proposed changes #6- Unit Bonus for the Maintenance of Existing Structures and #7-Lot
Width Maximum, were designed to address these concerns of demolition of existing
housing stock.
The Council may wish to ask the administration to further expound on these
changes and how they may or may not mitigate the potential demolition of
existing buildings.
Page | 9
2. Concerns have been expressed that this text amendment could result in the loss of older housing
stock that provides affordable rental housing in the City, and that the City does not know how much
housing could be eliminated.
The Council may wish to ask the administration if more information is needed to
determine if this text amendment may result in the loss of many “affordable
units.”
If the Council is interested in incentivizing the preservation of these older units,
the Council may wish at ask if there are other options that may be available to
do so.
Are there other changes that can/should be considered to help incentivize
owners of contributory structures to redevelop/improve existing housing?
3. Some concerns about loss of affordable units could potentially be addressed by making changes to
the mitigation of residential housing loss ordinance (18.97.020). The administration is currently
reviewing that ordinance for potential updates.
The Council may wish to ask the administration for an update on the drafting of
potential changes to that ordinance.
4. According the planning commission staff report, a goal of this text amendment is to “solidify
changes to this (RMF 30) multi-family district first and apply similar changes to the rest of the
multi-family districts in the near future.”
The Council may wish to ask the administration which other multi-family
zoning districts will be reviewed for potential changes.
Attachment B of the planning commission staff report includes a variety of maps that help depict
which areas of the city will be impacted by the proposed changes.
RMF-30 Zoning Districts Citywide
Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment B - Map 1
Page | 10
Planning staff did an analysis of the existing RMF-30 zoned priorities to see which of those
would be eligible to have more units added if the proposed changes are adopted.
Central City / East Central Neighborhoods
Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment B - Map 5
Page | 11
Sugar House Neighborhood
Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment B - Map 5
Page | 12
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The purpose of this project is to review the zoning standards within the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-
Page | 13
Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort to remove zoning barriers to
housing development as recommended within Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan (2018-2022).
For some time, staff recognized many of the zoning standards within the city’s four multi-family
residential (RMF) zoning districts can be quite restrictive and limit creative housing development,
which is why these amendments are being proposed starting the lowest density RMF-30 district.
(Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 2)
Planning staff noted a goal of this text amendment is to “solidify changes to this multi-family district
first and apply similar changes to the rest of the multi-family districts in the near future.” (Planning
Commission Staff Report, Page 2)
Key Issues
The planning commission staff report outlines the key issues. A brief summary of those issues is
provided below. Please see pages 11-15 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis.
1. Compliance with Citywide Master Plans
Growing SLC - Planning staff noted some of the objectives from Growing SLC
support the proposed text amendments:
o 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes
o 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase
housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional
units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
o 1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for those
developers constructing new affordable units.
o 1.3.1 Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as
construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form,
function, and maintenance.
Plan Salt Lake - Planning staff noted some of the guiding principles from Plan Salt
Lake support the proposed text amendments:
o Guiding Principle 1/Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment,
opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the
community therein.
o Guiding Principle 2/Growth: Growing responsibly, while providing people with
choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around.
o Guiding Principle 3/Housing: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all
income levels throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety
and responding to changing demographics.
Salt Lake City Council’s 20 Guiding Principles of Housing Development -
Planning staff noted the following guiding principles support the proposed text
amendments:
o Principal 6 – Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: i. Avoiding
displacement of existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and ii.
Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
o Principal 8 – Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all
backgrounds and incomes.
o Principal 16 – Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply
including housing types that the private market does not sufficiently provide
such as family housing in the downtown area, innovative housing types, missing
middle housing and middle- to low-income apartments.
Page | 14
2. Community Concerns
Demolition of existing housing
o With any proposal that allows more housing density in an area, there tends to
be concern that existing historic and/or affordable housing will be demolished
to make way for larger more expensive housing developments.
o A balance needs to be struck between allowing more housing on adequately
sized lots and promoting the preservation of existing structures, which is what
this proposal aims to achieve.
#6- Unit Bonus for the Maintenance of Existing Structures and #7-Lot
Width Maximum, were designed to address these concerns of
demolition of existing housing stock.
Affordable Housing Development
o By reducing required lot size per unit, units themselves might also be smaller
and, in turn, more affordable.
The three housing types that are being promoted with this amendment
including cottage developments, row houses and tiny houses also tend to
have smaller footprints.
o These amendments are aimed at facilitating new multi-family housing in
general. A greater supply of market rate housing may free up the number of
affordable or mid-priced units for those who truly qualify for them.
Preservation of Allen Park
o Multiple concerns have been raised regarding the preservation of Allen Park,
which is a large 5-acre parcel located across from Westminster College at
approximately 1700 South and 1300 East and zoned RMF-30
o The City recently purchased Allen Park and has indicated the intent is to
maintain it as a natural open space. Please see the City website for more info:
www.slc.gov/parks/allenpark/
Parking Requirements
o Parking will not be updated as a part of this zoning text amendment; however,
the parking chapter is being updated at this time per a different text
amendment. Staff will work together closely to see how parking can be best
accommodated within the city’s RMF districts.
THE FUTURE OF HOUSING: A COLLECTIVE VISION FOR AN EQUITABLE SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL //DECEMBER 1, 2020
COMMUNITY VALUES //PRINCIPLES
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
Community Fabric
Adaption
City Investment
Housing Choice
Transportation Options
Upward Mobility
Access to Opportunity
Sustainability
Economic Diversity
EQUITABLE + HOLISTIC CITY //VISION
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
EXISTING CONDITIONS //NEED TO ACT
HIGHLIGHTS
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
"Salt Lake City is in the beginning stages of a systemic housing
crisis..." -Growing SLC, 2018
"Act now to avoid a housing affordability crisis in Utah"
-Natalie Gochnour, Deseret News, 2018
"The Utah housing market has entered perilous price territory.”
-James Wood, Kem C. Gardner, Nov.2020
DEFINITIONS
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing refers to a specific type of housing, generally
government-assisted rental housing, targeted for very low to
extremely low-income households.
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is a much broader term and refers to the
general level of housing prices relative to the general level of
household incomes. The term does not refer to any particular type
of housing.
-James Wood, Reflections on Affordability in Utah's Housing
Market, Nov 2020
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
RENTAL HOUSING COST INCREASES VS. RENTAL INCOME INCREASES
Observations
Utah has had some of the best income increases in the nation in
the past ten years, but they have not kept pace with increases in
construction costs and total apartment rents/values.
Rental housing increased from roughly $750 to $1,373.
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
Rental Housing Cost vs.
Renter Income Increase
AVERAGE HOUSING COSTS
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
28%
50% AMI
$2,570/mo
$30,800/yr
30% AMI
$1,537/mo
$18,450/yr
80% AMI
$5,860/mo
$70,300/yr
50% AMI
$3,660/mo
$43,950/yr
30% AMI
$2,660/mo
$26,350/yr
80% AMI
$4,100/mo
$49,250/yr
Percentage of Monthly Income Spent on Housing
Median Family Income $87,900
45% 75% 23% 37% 60%
Single Person Family of Four
2BR -Average Rental Unit $1,3731BR -Average Rental Unit $1,150
"FOR SALE" HOUSING COST INCOME INCREASES VS. "OWNER" INCOME INCREASES
Observations
“For sale” incomes have increased at a greater rate than “for rent”
incomes.
This suggests that economic growth has favored higher income
brackets to a higher degree than the gains for lower income
groups.
“For Sale” housing costs (home values)increased from roughly
$180,000 to near $350,000.
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
“For Sale” Housing Cost Increases
vs.“Owner” Income Increases
INCREASE IN HOME VALUES
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
2020 Single-family house typical value 2011-2020 Average annual change
AFFORDABILITY INDEX
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
Affordability Index -2020
Median Household Income -$56,370
Median List Price $425,000 7.54
Median Sold Price $481,778 8.55
Median Home Value $351,177 6.23
Affordability Index –Median Home Value
2016 4.67
2017 5.17
2018 5.42
2019 5.86
2020 6.23
2016 –Median home values were 4.67 times greater than incomes
2020 –Median home values are 6.23 times greater than incomes
Key Industry Job Growth and Starting Wages –2020-2025, Salt Lake City
Job Category Average Starting Wage Starting Salary –Qualify for Median SLC
Home Sales Price (2020)*
Manufacturing $64,500 No –18% below
Distribution, Warehousing,
Transportation $51,000 No –49% below
Health and Social Services $47,500 No –61% below
Professional Services $76,000 Yes
Public Administration $52,500 No –45% below
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
JOB GROWTH AND STARTING WAGES
* Assumes 20 percent down, 3.0 % interest, standard taxes and utilities.Requires roughly $76,200 salary to qualify for median
home sale price ($481,778 in 2020), assuming no more than 30% of income is spent on housing and related utilities.
PROJECTIONS
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
Observations
The projected course if we continue at the increases
experienced over the past two years.
If median housing values increase at similar annual rates as
the past ten years and if median household incomes increase
at similar annual rates as the past ten years…then the
affordability index in 2030 will be 11.6.
The median housing price will be 11.6 times more than the
median household income (current is 6.23).
“For Sale” Housing Cost Increases vs.
“Owner” Income Increases –Projected
EXISTING ZONING
•Residential zoning became more restrictive over time.
•First zoning ordinance adopted in 1927, permitted two-family
dwellings in all residential zones.
•Apartments and hotels permitted in the Residential B zones that included the Lower Avenues, Capitol Hill, Poplar
Grove, East Central and neighborhoods surrounding State
Street.
•In 1944, many of the neighborhoods surrounding Liberty Park and to the south zoned were A-3, which allowed fourplexes.
•In 1977, outer neighborhoods on the east and west sides
permitted single and two-family dwellings.
•1995 rezoning downzoned many areas from R-2 to R-1, prohibiting two-family dwellings.
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
WHERE ARE RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED?
Total City Acreage: 71,500 acres
including airport, open space, and foothills.
Permitted Residential:Approx.12,600 acres
(17.6%) -including most of downtown and
other commercial areas.
Permitted
Not Permitted
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTIONS // POLICY
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
GROWING SLC //GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Policy Solution Growing SLC Goal and Objective
Transportation G1 O1.1.1:Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes.
Housing Loss Mitigation G2 O2.2.1: Propose a significant, long-term, and sustainable funding source for the development, preservation, and stability of affordable housing.
Gentrification/Relocation/Displacement G2 O2.1.2: Consider an ordinance that would require and incentivize the inclusion of affordable units in new developments.
Demolition G1 O2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
ADU G1 O1.1.3: Revise the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance to expand its application and develop measures to promote its use.
Shared Housing G1 O1.1.2: Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock,increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities,and allow
additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Off-Street Parking G1 O1.1.4: Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing developments and eliminate parking requirements in transit-rich, walkable
neighborhoods or when the specific demographics of a development require less parking, such as senior populations.
RMF-30 G1 O1.1.2:Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow
additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Affordable Housing Overlay G1 O1.1.2:Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow
additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
Adaptive Reuse G1 O3:Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION
Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to mitigate the loss of
affordable housing stock due to new development with
due consideration for vested or protected property rights.
(Salt Lake City Municipal Code 18.97)
Impact
The intention behind the codified Housing Loss Mitigation
ordinance is to "do no harm" to the current housing supply.
Status
Planning Commission briefing March 27, 2019 item was
tabled.HAND convened a working group and met with
community partners.
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
Item Current Issue Recommendation
Purpose "Do no harm" to housing supply.Naturally occurring affordable housing is being replaced
by market rate units.
Mitigate the impacts of the loss of naturally
occurring affordable housing, and residential units
through a performance or payment option.
Trigger
Trigger could be a demo permit, parking CUP, zoning
amendment for non-residential use of land that contains
residential dwelling units.
Multiple touch points in the application process and the
housing plan is required too early in the process;
development may not occur.
Building permit or change of land use.
Formula
Building value from County Accessor minus the International
Code Council (ICC) square foot replacement costs. Payment
intended to infuse capital into the Housing Trust Fund for
future affordable housing development.
Results in a negative valuation due to the calculation based
on appraised value rather than market value.
Formula calculation could be based on tenant rent,
cost per square foot, or construction costs.
Process
Application submitted to Building Services, Planning creates
a report, CAN Director sends to Housing Advisory and
Appeals Board for a public process.
No clear ownership over process.Administrative process, with an appeal option.
"Ownership" in one CAN Division.
TRANSPORTATION
Purpose
Important connection of transportation & land use.
After housing, transportation biggest household expense.
Invest in bus service & infrastructure, including high frequency bus.
Investments in walking & biking to expand choices; Street Typologies.
Impact
Housing zoning ordinances & amendments tied to
transportation/transit.
Reducing transportation cost burden can be part of solution.
Status
Street Typologies –Public comments received.
Transit Master Plan –Priority bus routes being implemented by City;
additional routes by UTA.
Transportation Master Plan update –RFP out 2021.
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
HOUSING RELATED AMENDMENTS
Accessory Dwelling Units
Adopted 2018, Annual Report required.
Allows for small, more affordable units on single-family properties.
Shared Housing
Hearing closed, pending consideration.
Provide more opportunities for shared housing.
RMF-30
Hearing closed, pending consideration.
Increase opportunities for multifamily development.
Off-street Parking
Draft ordinance transmitted to City Council.
Modify parking required, can reduce the cost of development.
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY
Purpose
Provide incentives, including density and height, that would reduce
barriers to development for projects that include affordable units.
Impact
Proposal would affect zones that permit residential development.
The scope of the incentives permitted would determine number of
units constructed and their locations.
Status
Draft proposal outlined Summer 2020.Public feedback obtained
through surveys. Preparing draft for discussion.
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
ADAPTIVE REUSE
Purpose
Promotes the city-wide reuse of existing buildings that have
outlived their original use. This project will enable growth and new
housing opportunities within established neighborhoods, while
preserving existing neighborhood and community character.
Impact
Proposal would affect zones that permit residential, commercial
and mixed-use development; excluding single-family residential
districts.
Status
Public engagement for this project is anticipated to start in the
beginning of 2021.
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
NEXT STEPS //2021
ADOPTION //POLICIES
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
Funding Our Future
(Continued
Implementation)
New Housing Plan
(Launch)
Affordable Housing
Overlay
(Draft and Hearings)
Adaptive Reuse
(Draft and Hearings)
Transportation
Master Plan
(Launch)
Shared Housing
(Council
Consideration)
RMF-30
(Council
Consideration)
Off-Street Parking
(Council
Consideration)
Gentrification
Study RFQ
(Launch)
Growing SLC
(Continued
Implementation)
Accessory
Dwelling Units
(Adopted in 2018)
Demolition Ordinance
(Adopted)
Rent and Mortgage
Assistance
(Continued
Implementation)
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
MOVING FORWARD //POLICY DIRECTION
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
THREADS OF ANEQUITABLE CITY
GENTRIFICATION
Vision for Creating an Equitable City
•Advance socio-economic mobility and improve access
to opportunity.
•Provide affordable housing solutions and preserve existing
affordable housing.
•Develop policy recommendations to mitigate displacement &
preserve community character.
•Promote equitable transportation mobility and connectivity.
•Ensure access to healthy and safe neighborhoods.
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
Approach
•Council approved funding ($100K)April 7, 2020 for
Gentrification Mitigation Study.
•Community engagement and data analysis of gentrification
pressures and risk of displacement from City neighborhoods.
•Anticipate policy changes needed in both ordinance
amendments and program implementation to address short-
and long-term needs.
•Long range goals for achieving Citywide equity and inclusion.
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND IMPACT
The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City
Expanding housing types,
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Downtown building heights,
Shared housing
Granary, Ballpark // 2100
South TRAX stations,
Life on State, RMF zones
DEVELOPMENT SIZE
(Most intensive to less intensive)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Blake Thomas
CAN Director //
blake.thomas@slc.gov
Angela Price
HAND Project and Policy Manager //
angela.price@slcgov.com
Sara Javoronok
Senior Planner //
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com
Susan Lundmark
Transportation Planner //
susan.lundmark@slcgov.com
Housing Affordability:
What Are Best Practices
and Why Are They
Important?
James Wood
Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow
Dejan Eskic
Senior Research Analyst
DJ Benway
Research Analyst
Kathryn Macdonald-Poelman
Graduate Assistant
A survey of leading housing practitioners identified five
“best practices” for meeting the housing affordability
challenge in Utah. This study examines why these
practices are “best practices,” the implementation of the
practice, and the outcomes produced.
November 2020
411 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM
Housing Affordability: What Are Best
Practices and Why Are They Important?
Utah’s housing shortage and escalating prices reflect local
housing policies. To be sure, market conditions—land, labor,
and material costs—affect housing production and prices, but
these factors offer scant opportunity for policy intervention.
The best chance to shrink the shortage and improve affordability
depends on local policies and practices. This study identifies
five best practices developed by local jurisdictions to improve
housing affordability. They include practices targeted at
redevelopment agencies (RDAs), transit-oriented developments
(TODs), accessory dwelling units (ADUs), preservation of
existing affordable units, and changes in land use.
Key Findings
• No Single Practice Answers the Growing Threat of Housing
Affordability—Addressing the housing crisis requires a
multi-practice approach. Successful housing strategies
involve a set of practices tailored to the city’s political climate,
development history, and socioeconomic conditions. While a
city’s housing practices are unique to that city’s needs, there
are a few universal elements for successful housing strategies:
community outreach, commitment, and flexibility.
• Success Is Measured in Small Increments—By design and
necessity, best practices often produce small, incremental
outcomes. They are targeted at site-specific developments.
For example, from 1987 to 2017, tax credits were used to
preserve an average of 229 affordable rental units annually.
While the annual average was incrementally small, the total
number of units preserved over the 30-year period is 6,644 a
sizeable share of Utah’s affordable housing inventory.
• Land Use Regulations Determine the Effectiveness of All
Best Practices—Land use regulations control what type of
housing gets built, where it gets built, and its affordability.
Without accommodative land use regulations, there is little
chance a city’s housing policies can influence prices, provide
diverse housing types, or meet changes in homebuyers’
preferences. Recently, housing preferences have moved
toward multifamily housing (condominiums, twin homes,
townhomes, and apartments). From 2000 to 2009,
multifamily units accounted for only 27% of all new
residential units in Utah, but from 2010 to 2019 the share of
Analysis in Brief
multifamily units increased to 44%, and in the last three
years, it climbed to nearly 50%. Zoning ordinances, in many
cities, do not reflect the shift in preferences to higher-
density, more affordable housing. Zoning often lags changes
in market preferences.
• Leadership and Political Will—Progress on the housing
crisis needs continued state and civic leadership. Without it,
today’s children, Utah’s next generation, will face an even
greater scarcity of affordable housing and more burdensome
housing prices.
Permits Issued for Single-Family and Multifamily
Units in Utah
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
19
8
7
19
8
9
19
9
1
19
9
3
19
9
5
19
9
7
19
9
9
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
19
8
7
19
8
9
19
9
1
19
9
3
19
9
5
19
9
7
19
9
9
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
Units Annual Avg. 229 units
11,872
15,118
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
n
i
t
s
Single-family Multifamily
9.3%
10.7%
10.9%
11.7%
16.8%
17.7%
18.7%
19.0%
19.1%
19.2%
19.3%
19.5%
22.3%
23.0%
23.6%
25.3%
26.0%
26.1%
26.5%
27.5%
28.2%
28.3%
29.3%
31.2%
31.4%
31.4%
31.5%
32.6%
32.6%
32.8%
33.4%
33.5%
33.9%
34.2%
34.5%
34.5%
34.7%
35.2%
35.8%
36.7%
38.2%
39.2%
40.4%
41.5%
46.2%
47.1%
48.3%
49.1%
53.0%
55.7%
59.1%
69.6%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%
North Dakota
Alaska
Connecticut
West Virgina
Louisiana
Illinois
Mississippi
Wyoming
New Jersey
Maryland
Oklahoma
Delaware
Iowa
Arkansas
Vermont
Virginia
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
New York
South Dakota
Kansas
Kentucky
Alabama
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Nebraska
Massachusetts
Ohio
Wisconsin
Montana
US
Missouri
Rhode Island
Minnesota
Texas
Indiana
Maine
South Carolina
DC
California
North Carolina
Michigan
Tennessee
Georgia
Arizona
Oregon
Florida
Colorado
Utah
Nevada
Washington
Idaho
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Units Annual avg. 229 units
Detached Attached
Garage ConversionAbove Garage
Interior (upper level)
Interior (lower level)
54%Long-term rental (rental)
19%Short-term rental (vacation)
65%Primary residence (for owner)
40%Other*
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Annual Preservation of Affordable Rental Units
Using Tax Credits
Source: Utah Housing Corporation
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
19
8
7
19
8
9
19
9
1
19
9
3
19
9
5
19
9
7
19
9
9
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
19
8
7
19
8
9
19
9
1
19
9
3
19
9
5
19
9
7
19
9
9
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
Units Annual Avg. 229 units
11,872
15,118
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
n
i
t
s
Single-family Multifamily
9.3%
10.7%
10.9%
11.7%
16.8%
17.7%
18.7%
19.0%
19.1%
19.2%
19.3%
19.5%
22.3%
23.0%
23.6%
25.3%
26.0%
26.1%
26.5%
27.5%
28.2%
28.3%
29.3%
31.2%
31.4%
31.4%
31.5%
32.6%
32.6%
32.8%
33.4%
33.5%
33.9%
34.2%
34.5%
34.5%
34.7%
35.2%
35.8%
36.7%
38.2%
39.2%
40.4%
41.5%
46.2%
47.1%
48.3%
49.1%
53.0%
55.7%
59.1%
69.6%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%
North Dakota
Alaska
Connecticut
West Virgina
Louisiana
Illinois
Mississippi
Wyoming
New Jersey
Maryland
Oklahoma
Delaware
Iowa
Arkansas
Vermont
Virginia
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
New York
South Dakota
Kansas
Kentucky
Alabama
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Nebraska
Massachusetts
Ohio
Wisconsin
Montana
US
Missouri
Rhode Island
Minnesota
Texas
Indiana
Maine
South Carolina
DC
California
North Carolina
Michigan
Tennessee
Georgia
Arizona
Oregon
Florida
Colorado
Utah
Nevada
Washington
Idaho
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Units Annual avg. 229 units
Detached Attached
Garage ConversionAbove Garage
Interior (upper level)
Interior (lower level)
54%Long-term rental (rental)
19%Short-term rental (vacation)
65%Primary residence (for owner)
40%Other*
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM
Table of Contents
I. Zoning Changes and Housing Affordability ..........1
Background ............................................1
Why Zoning Changes Are a Best Practice ................1
Framework for Implementation .........................5
Examples of Best Practice ...............................6
II. Preservation of Affordable Housing .................8
Background ............................................8
Why Preservation is a Best Practice ......................8
Framework for Implementation .......................10
Examples of Best Practice .............................10
Variations on a Theme ................................11
III. Redevelopment Agencies, Tax Increment
Financing, and Housing Affordability ..............12
Background ..........................................12
Why Tax Increment Financing Is a Best Practice ........12
Framework for Implementation .......................14
Examples of Best Practice .............................14
IV. Accessory Dwelling Units and Housing Affordability 16
Background ..........................................16
Why ADUs Are a Best Practice .........................16
Framework for Implementation .......................17
Examples of Best Practice .............................17
V. Transit-Oriented Development and Housing
Affordability .....................................19
Background ..........................................19
Why Transit-Oriented Developments
Are a Best Practice ..................................19
Framework for Implementation .......................20
Examples of Best Practice .............................20
Variations on a Theme ................................21
VI. Survey of Best Practices ...........................22
VII. Examples of Best Practices Outside of Utah .........23
A. Public Asset Management and Housing
Affordability ..................................23
B. Up-Zoning and Housing Affordability .............24
C. Housing Affordability and Adaptive Reuse of
Commercial for Residential ....................24
D. Housing Trust Funds and Affordable Housing ......25
E. State Leadership and Housing Affordability .......26
Other Local Studies on Housing Affordability ...........27
Figures
Figure I.1: Change in Housing Price Index by State .........2
Figure I.2: Top 25 Metro Areas Ranked by Median
Sales Price of Single-Family Homes, Q1 2020 .............3
Figure I.3: Market-Rate Apartment Projects
Completed in Salt Lake County, 2000–2019 ..............4
Figure I.4: Comparison of Form-Based Code to
Conventional Zoning ...................................7
Figure II.1: Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Rental
Units Financed Through the Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit ............................................10
Figure IV.1: Different Ways to Integrate ADUs with
Existing Housing ......................................16
Figure IV.2: Permitted ADU Occupancy in Cities
that Allow ADUs ......................................18
Figure A.1: Copenhagen Mechanism for CPH City
& Port Development ..................................23
Tables
Table I.1: Utah Households for Selected Years, 2009–2025 ..1
Table I.2: Permits Issued for Residential Units in Utah .......2
Table I.3: Top Five Large Metropolitan Areas Ranked by
Change in Price Index ...................................2
Table I.4: Developed Residential Acreage by Type of
Use, Salt Lake County, 2019 .............................4
Table I.5: S.B. 34 Strategies Selected by Municipalities ......6
Table II.1: Rental Properties at Risk of Opting Out,
2020–2025 .............................................8
Table II.2: Expiration Date and At-Risk Units in HUD
Apartment Communities in Utah ........................8
Table II.3: Expiration Date of Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit Projects in Utah, 2020–2025 ..................9
Table II.4: Gap of Affordable and Available Rental
Units for Renters at 0–50% AMI in Utah ..................9
Table II.5: Rental Rate Increase in Wasatch Front
Counties, 2008–2019 .................................10
Table II.6: Cities That Have Selected Preserving Existing
Moderate-Income Housing as an S.B. 34 Strategy ......11
Table II.7: Cities That Have Selected to Preserve
Subsidized Low- to Moderate-Income Units on a Long-
Term Basis as an S.B. 34 Strategy .......................11
Table III.1: Housing Units Facilitated by Tax Increment
Financing in Selected Cities ...........................12
Table III.2: Project Areas by Type in Cities and
Counties, 2018 ........................................12
Table III.3: Project Areas by County and City ..............13
Table IV.1: Share of Attached Renter-Occupied Units in
Single-Unit Structures for Cities with 20,000 or
More Residents in Utah, 2014–2018 ...................18
Table V.1: Market Rate Apartments Near UTA Rail
Stations in Cities and Towns in Salt Lake County, 2018 ..19
Table V.2: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Units Near
UTA Rail Stations in Cities and Towns in Salt Lake
County, 2017 .........................................19
Table VI.1: Respondents to Best Practices Survey .........22
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 1
I. Zoning Changes and Housing Affordability
Background
In 1908, Los Angeles became the first city to adopt a local
zoning ordinance. It wasn’t until 1925 that the Utah legislature
passed the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management
Act. This enabling act allowed a city to “divide the territory over
which it has jurisdiction into zoning districts to regulate and
restrict the use of the land.”1 The enabling legislation provides
the city the authority to control the land use and control what
type of structures can be built, limit the size of structures, and,
importantly, define the approval process required for new
development. And beyond the broad fundamental authority
given to cities, municipal zoning laws can also regulate dozens
of related activities such as off-street parking, landscaping,
setbacks, etc. Thus, the power to regulate and oversee
development is vested in local authorities. The standardized
language in Salt Lake County’s municipal code sets out the
purpose of zoning ordinances as “promoting the health, safety,
morals, conveniences, order, prosperity and welfare of present
and future inhabitants of Salt Lake County.”2
Until recently, housing policy discussions rarely included
much talk about zoning, except for the voices of ardent housing
advocates. But Utah’s extraordinary demographic and economic
growth since 2010 has brought zoning to the forefront of
housing policy discussions. Growth has led to a housing
shortage, which has contributed to the rapid increases in
housing prices and rents. According to the National Association
of Realtors, the year-over median sales price of a home in the
Salt Lake metropolitan area increased by 12.3% in the first
quarter of 2020. The Salt Lake metropolitan area ranked 16th of
182 metropolitan areas surveyed for year-over price increase.
Housing price increases were lower in 90% of the metropolitan
areas surveyed. And rents across Wasatch Front counties have
been increasing at 5% to 7% annually despite the addition of a
record number of new apartment units. Consequently, attention
by housing advocates, civic groups, and the business
community has turned to factors restricting housing supply.
One such factor is zoning, which allows municipalities to
achieve valuable planning, aesthetic, and social goals, but can
also contribute to the housing affordability problem.
For current residents, zoning is among the most popular of
municipal regulations. Zoning ordinances, in all their complexity,
reflect a bottom-up approach to governance. As city councils
and planners respond to their constituents, zoning ordinances
come to embody, in part, resident concerns, interests, and
preferences. And a facet of land use regulation familiar to every
developer is the opportunity for neighbors to express their
views, in front of the city council and planning commission, on
proposed new residential and commercial developments.
While neighborhood participation has long been a feature of
city council and planning commission meetings, social media
have increased and intensified resident involvement in the
approval process.
Researchers and academics have tried to measure zoning
stringency and develop comparative city-to-city metrics without
much success. The “typical” zoning ordinance escapes definition.
There are too many qualifications and nuances to the ordinances.
For example, the minimum lot size in a city can vary throughout
zones in the city. Surveying planners about the typical minimum
lot size turns out to produce a complicated answer.
Zoning ordinances are the dominant public policy in
determining the character of a community’s housing stock. The
number, type, price, size, and location of housing units reflect
the local zoning ordinances. As a best practice, zoning reform
has the greatest potential of any practice to positively affect
housing affordability.
Why Zoning Changes Are a Best Practice
● Provide a Powerful Policy Tool to Increase the Supply of Hous-
ing—Zoning ordinances, in no small measure, control the
supply of housing through land use, density, design regula-
tions. These regulations, more than any other local policies,
govern the annual supply of single-family and multifamily
housing. In recent years, the supply of housing has not met
the demand. Since 2009, the number of Utah households
has increased by 220,720, while the number of dwelling units
has increased by 185,334, a shortfall of 30% (see Tables I.1 and
I.2).3 The housing shortage has driven-up housing prices and
rents and created a serious housing affordability problem.
The shortage has also excluded many from homeownership,
added to substantial increases in doubling-up of households,
delayed marriages, and discouraged young people from
forming new households. Household projections from the
Gardner Policy Institute show that the housing shortage and
Table I.1: Utah Households for Selected Years, 2009–2025
Year Households
2009 864,771
2010 877,692
2019 1,085,491
2020 1,109,803
2025 1,247,948
2009–2019 220,720
2020–2025 138,145
Annual Avg.27,600
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM2
its impacts will only worsen in the next five years, without the
addition of at least 27,600 new housing units annually. Over
the past five years, the number of new dwelling units in Utah
has averaged 21,150 units, about 75% of the number required
to meet the annual demand over the next five years.
● Provide, Through Higher Density or Up-Zoning, a Counterweight
to Housing Price Increases—In a recent survey conducted for
the Salt Lake Chamber, housing affordability topped the list
of issues that most concerned Utah families, ahead of
transportation, air quality, and education. Since 2015 the
median sales price of a home in Salt Lake County has
increased from $269,000 to $405,000. The monthly mortgage
payment on the median-priced home has increased from
$1,490 in 2015 to $2,110 in 2020. Another measure of price
increase comes from the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Of the largest 100 metropolitan areas in the country, the Salt
Lake metro area ranks fourth in housing price increase since
2015, and the state also ranks fourth behind Idaho,
Washington, and Nevada (see Table I.3 and Figure I.1). This
troubling price trajectory can’t be tamped down without a
larger supply of high-density housing. Several sources of
housing prices show that the Salt Lake metropolitan area
and Utah have not only rapidly increasing housing prices but
also have among the highest housing prices in the country.
Of 183 metropolitan areas surveyed by the National
Association of Realtors, the Salt Lake metro area ranks 22nd
highest, with a median home price of $372,100. Map 1.
● Provide the Most Effective Policy Response to Changing Hous-
ing Preferences—Single-family parcels account for nearly
90% of developed residential land in Salt Lake County. A
high concentration of residential land zoned for single-fam-
ily homes is typical in many urban areas.4 But housing de-
mand, due primarily to affordability issues and changing
Table I.2: Permits Issued for Residential Units in Utah
Year Permitted Dwelling Units
2009 10,597
2010 9,079
2011 9,083
2012 11,919
2013 15,008
2014 18,807
2015 17,287
2016 19,639
2017 22,374
2018 23,931
2019 27,610
Total 185,334
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Table I.3: Top Five Large Metropolitan Areas Ranked by
Change in Price Index
(First Quarter 2015 to First Quarter 2020)
Metropolitan Area % Change
Boise, ID 84.1%
Seattle-Bellevue-Kent WS 58.9%
Tampa-St Petersburg-Clearwater FL 56.2%
Salt Lake, UT 55.1%
Las Vegas, NV 54.7%
Source: Price Changes in 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Figure I.1: Change in Housing Price Index by State
(First Quarter 2015 to First Quarter 2020)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
19
8
7
19
8
9
19
9
1
19
9
3
19
9
5
19
9
7
19
9
9
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
19
8
7
19
8
9
19
9
1
19
9
3
19
9
5
19
9
7
19
9
9
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
Units Annual Avg. 229 units
11,872
15,118
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
n
i
t
s
Single-family Multifamily
9.3%
10.7%
10.9%
11.7%
16.8%
17.7%
18.7%
19.0%
19.1%
19.2%
19.3%
19.5%
22.3%
23.0%
23.6%
25.3%
26.0%
26.1%
26.5%
27.5%
28.2%
28.3%
29.3%
31.2%
31.4%
31.4%
31.5%
32.6%
32.6%
32.8%
33.4%
33.5%
33.9%
34.2%
34.5%
34.5%
34.7%
35.2%
35.8%
36.7%
38.2%
39.2%
40.4%
41.5%
46.2%
47.1%
48.3%
49.1%
53.0%
55.7%
59.1%
69.6%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%
North Dakota
Alaska
Connecticut
West Virgina
Louisiana
Illinois
Mississippi
Wyoming
New Jersey
Maryland
Oklahoma
Delaware
Iowa
Arkansas
Vermont
Virginia
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
New York
South Dakota
Kansas
Kentucky
Alabama
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Nebraska
Massachusetts
Ohio
Wisconsin
Montana
US
Missouri
Rhode Island
Minnesota
Texas
Indiana
Maine
South Carolina
DC
California
North Carolina
Michigan
Tennessee
Georgia
Arizona
Oregon
Florida
Colorado
Utah
Nevada
Washington
Idaho
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Units Annual avg. 229 units
Detached Attached
Garage ConversionAbove Garage
Interior (upper level)
Interior (lower level)
54%Long-term rental (rental)
19%Short-term rental (vacation)
65%Primary residence (for owner)
40%Other*
Source: FHFA
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 3
preferences, has shifted toward multifamily living (condo-
miniums, townhomes, twin homes, and apartments). From
2000 to 2009, multifamily units accounted for only 27% of all
new residential units in Utah, but from 2010 to 2019 the
share of multifamily units increased to 44%, and in the last
three years it climbed to 50%. Zoning ordinances in many
cities lag market preferences. Some cities and states are ad-
dressing the issue of outdated zoning ordinances with ag-
gressive responses. Oregon and Minneapolis have ended
the single-family zone and allowed higher density develop-
ment on formerly single-family parcels. Massachusetts,
Maryland, Washington, Virginia, and Nebraska are also con-
sidering proposals to change the single-family zone. With-
out changes in zoning ordinances that allow more multi-
family housing, little progress will be made on easing Utah’s
housing shortage and tempering the increase in housing
prices and rental rates.
Developed residential acreage in Salt Lake County is
heavily concentrated in single-family lots. High-density,
multifamily acreage represents a little less than 10% of
developed land (see Table I.4). To accommodate shifting
preferences for affordable, high-density housing, the future
share of developed multifamily acreage will likely increase.
Figure I.2: Top 25 Metro Areas Ranked by Median Sales Price of Single-Family Homes, Q1 2020
Area Price % Change YoY
Salem, OR $331,400 13.4%
Colorado Springs, CO $339,100 14.4%
Austin-Round Rock TX $341,500 12.6%
Salt Lake City, UT $372,100 12.3%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach FL $375,000 7.1%
Newark NJ PA $388,000 7.9%
Sacramento-Roseville-Arden Arcade, CA $392,300 9.0%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA $393,000 7.7%
Reno, NV $407,600 7.7%
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR, WA $416,100 6.5%
New York-Newark- Jersey City, NY NJ $420,300 6.0%
Barnstable Town, MA $426,600 4.7%
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT $432,100 7.7%
Area Price % Change YoY
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,
DC-VA-MD-WV $438,900 4.5%
Denver-Aurora, CO $473,800 6.1%
Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL $480,000 11.9%
Nassau County-Suffolk County NY $487,700 2.8%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA $494,400 7.2%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA $554,500 11.5%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale CA $592,800 8.1%
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA $670,000 8.1%
Honolulu, HI $788,800 -0.7%
Anaheim-Santa Anna-Irvine, CA $875,000 9.4%
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CA $985,000 5.9%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA $1,350,000 10.7%
Source: National Association of Realtors
San Jose-Sunny-
vale-Santa Clara, CA
Nassau County-Suolk County NY
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA
Denver-Aurora, CO
Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Glendale CA
San Diego-Carlsbad, CAAnaheim-Santa
Anna-Irvine, CA
San Francisco-Oak-
land-Hayward CA
New York-Newark-
Jersey City, NY NJ
Washington-Arling-
ton-Alexandria,
DC-VA-MD-WV
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT
Barnstable Town , MA
Portland-Vancouver-Hills-
boro, OR, WA
Reno, NV
Honolulu, HI
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario, CA
Sacramen-
to-Roseville-Ar-
den Arcade, CA
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale-West
Palm Beach FL
Newark NJ PASalt Lake City, UT
Austin-Round Rock TX
Colorado Springs, CO
Salem, OR
Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM4
● Provide a Policy Tool to Reduce the Spatial Concentrations of
Moderate- to Low-Income Renter Households of Color—Salt
Lake and Utah counties have relatively high levels of moder-
ate- to low-income households of color. A majority of these
households rent; however, affordable rental opportunities
are limited in many cities because of zoning ordinances and
Nimbyism. The consequences of limited housing choices are
particularly harmful to children, affecting their schools, so-
cial environment, health, and long-term economic opportu-
nities. The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute has developed an
opportunity index to categorize census tracts from very
low-opportunity neighborhoods to very high-opportunity
neighborhoods. The opportunity index was developed from
a set of nine variables. A map of the locations of market-rate
apartment projects developed in Salt Lake County since
2000 (26,200 units) shows that approximately 70% of new
market-rate apartment units (18,000) are located in very
low- to low-opportunity neighborhoods, thus limiting so-
cio-economic opportunities for these renter households
(see Figure I.3). Relaxing zoning ordinances, along with oth-
er measures, can help provide greater opportunity for
households of color.
● Provide, Through Higher Density or Up-Zoning, Greater Econom-
ic Efficiencies for Households and Government—Higher-densi-
ty housing, which is often closer to employment centers, may
reduce household transportation costs. Public infrastructure
costs will be lower per household in higher-density residen-
Table I.4: Developed Residential Acreage by Type of Use,
Salt Lake County, 2019
Category Acres Share
Single-Family 65,118 88.1%
Multifamily 7,277 9.8%
Condos 2,201 3.0%
Townhomes 834 1.1%
Twin homes/duplex 1,119 1.5%
99 plus rental units 1,912 2.6%
50–98 rental units 357 0.5%
20–49 rental units 212 0.3%
10–19 rental units 167 0.2%
5–9 rental units 138 0.2%
3–4 rental units 338 0.5%
Group home 222 0.3%
Manufactured home 1,288 1.7%
Total 73,905 100.0%
Source: Housing and Community Development, Salt Lake County
Figure I.3: Market-Rate
Apartment Projects
Completed in Salt Lake
County, 2000–2019
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 5
tial developments. Higher housing densities, particularly sur-
rounding transit-oriented developments (TODs), improve
public transportation efficiency. And high-density housing is
an essential component of a walkable community.
● Facilitate Long-Term Economic Growth and Employment
Opportunities—In Silicon Valley and New York City, restrictive
zoning ordinances have constrained the housing supply,
limited employment growth, and left many workers poorer
due to the mismatch between where people live and where
they work. While Utah’s economic growth has not yet been
curbed by housing supply constraints, without modifications
of local zoning ordinances, its long-term economic potential
will not be realized.
● Facilitate the Effectiveness of Other Best Practices—The other
best practices discussed in this report depend on revisions
or adaptations in existing zoning ordinances. Pursuing
measures to address housing affordability through the
development of TODs, redevelopment agencies, accessory
dwelling units, or preservation will likely require conditional
use permits and at least some minor changes in the zoning
ordinances. And at a broader level, two of Utah’s leading
planning organizations, Wasatch Front Regional Council and
Envision Utah, both see metropolitan centers, urban centers,
and city centers as key to the future of land use development.
A concept of centered development includes high-density
residential development.
● Facilitate, Through Increased Rates of Homeownership, Wealth
Creation—Homeownership is the major source of wealth for
moderate-income households. Harvard’s Joint Center for
Housing Studies found that, nationally, moderate-income
households ($39,500 to $45,570 in household income) with
a household head between 50 and 64 years old have median
home equity of $75,000, while a renter has no wealth from
home equity.5 Nationally, housing wealth accounts for about
half the net wealth of moderate-income households. In
Utah, where housing prices over the last 30 years have
increased at more than double the national rate, the
moderate-income homeowner could have as much as
$150,000 in home equity or housing wealth. Zoning that
allows for more affordable homeownership opportunities
reduces wealth inequality and provides housing security in
some cases for multiple generations.6
● Satisfy S.B. 34—The 2019 Utah Legislature passed S.B. 34
Affordable Housing Modifications. The bill requires local
communities to develop a moderate-income housing (MIH)
plan as part of their general plan. The MIH plan requires local
communities to adopt at least three strategies from a list of
23 strategies targeted at improving housing affordability.
Communities are then required to report on the
implementation and outcomes of their selected strategies
annually. Failure to implement the strategies will exclude
the community from state transportation funds. The first
strategy listed in S.B. 34 encourages a city “to rezone for
densities necessary to assure the production of moderate-
income housing.” 7 Up-zoning meets one of the requirements
of S.B. 34.
Framework for Implementation
● Political and Civic Engagement—The level of participation in
housing issues by the Utah Legislature, cities and counties,
the Salt Lake Chamber, nonprofit organizations, and
corporations is unprecedented. The convergence of three
issues has prompted this engagement: (1) the homeless
crisis, (2) the housing shortage, and (3) the housing
affordability challenge. These related issues pose near- and
long-term threats to the economic well-being of Utah
households, individual opportunity, and the state’s economic
prosperity. But given the more favorable political and civic
environment, the chances of meaningful local land-use
revisions, to mitigate these threats, are the best in years.
● Community Engagement—New residential or commercial de-
velopments often require a zoning variance and/or condi-
tional use permit. Approval for the variance will trigger public
hearings. Thus, land use regulations provide opportunities for
neighborhoods and individuals to be involved in the ap-
proval process, to voice their support or opposition to a pro-
posed high-density development. Consequently, communi-
ty engagement and coalition building become an essential
component of the implementation framework. In addition
to stakeholder outreach, another critical component is proj-
ect design; careful design, compatible with zoning ordi-
nances and neighborhood expectations, increases the likeli-
hood of approval.
● Complementary Policies—Less restrictive zoning is a
necessary condition for improved housing affordability and
increased housing production. Complementary policies
that would enhance less restrictive zoning include
streamlining and standardizing the uncertain and time-
consuming approval process and adopting form-based
code for selected zones.
● S.B. 34 Incentivizes Zoning Changes—The 2019 Utah
Legislature passed S.B. 34 Affordable Housing Modifications.
The bill enacted new policies for cities to encourage local
officials to plan and zone for affordable housing. The
legislation provided a list of 23 strategies to encourage
housing affordability. Cities are required to select at least
three strategies to be eligible to apply for $700 million in
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM6
state transportation funds. While outcomes of policy
changes will not be documented until 2021, it’s encouraging
that three of the four most frequently selected strategies
applied to zoning (see Table I.5).
Examples of Best Practice
● Salt Lake City’s Affordable Housing Overlay—The American
Planning Association defines an overlay zone as “a zoning
district applied over one or more previously established
zoning districts, establishing additional or stricter standards
and criteria for covered properties in addition to those of the
underlying zoning district. Overlay zones can be used to
promote specific development projects such as mixed-use
developments, waterfront developments, housing along
transit corridors, or affordable housing.”
Table I.5: S.B. 34 Strategies Selected by Municipalities
Strategies
Number of Municipalities
Committing to Strategy
Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, accessory dwelling units in residential zones 57
Rezone for densities necessary to assure the production of MIH (moderate-income housing)50
Allow for higher density or moderate-income residential development in commercial and mixed-use zones, commercial centers,
or employment centers 46
Encourage higher density or moderate-income residential development near major transit investment corridors 39
Facilitate the rehabilitation or expansion of infrastructure that will encourage the construction of MIH 32
Preserve existing MIH 28
Implement zoning incentives for low- to moderate-income units in new developments 26
Any other program or strategy implemented by the municipality to address the housing needs of residents of the municipality
who earn less than 80% of the area median income 22
Eliminate or reduce parking requirements for residential development where a resident is less likely to rely on their own vehicle,
e.g. residential development near major transit investment corridors or senior living facilities 21
Facilitate the rehabilitation of existing uninhabitable housing stock into MIH 17
Utilize strategies that preserve subsidized low- to moderate-income units on a long-term basis 15
Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for services provided by a public housing authority to preserve and create MIH 14
Utilize an MIH set aside from a community reinvestment agency, redevelopment agency, or community development and
renewal agency 13
Consider general fund subsidies or other sources of revenue to waive construction-related fees that are otherwise generally
imposed by the city 12
Reduce impact fees, as defined in Section 11-36a-102, related to low and MIH 12
Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or federal funds or tax incentives to promote the construction of MIH 12
Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for programs offered by the Utah Housing Corporation within that agency’s
funding capacity 12
Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for programs administered by an association of governments established by an
interlocal agreement under Title 11, Chapter 13, Interlocal Cooperation Act.11
Implement a mortgage assistance program for employees of the municipality or of an employer that provides contracted
services to the municipality 10
Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for programs administered by a metropolitan planning organization or other
transportation agency that provides technical planning assistance 10
Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for affordable housing programs administered by the Department of
Workforce Services 9
Allow for single-room-occupancy developments 6
Participate in a community land trust program for low or MIH 4
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services
Salt Lake City is the first municipality in Utah to pursue an
overlay zone for affordable housing. While Salt Lake City’s
overlay zone has not yet been finalized, the city is in the final
stages of community engagement and input. In 2019 the
city surveyed residents regarding an overlay zone. The
survey results have helped the city develop the overlay’s
preliminary criteria. In July 2020, the city held a virtual open
house to discuss the survey results and overlay zone’s
criteria. The city has made an extensive effort at resident and
stakeholder engagement. The city’s goal is to modify zoning
to promote more affordable housing and increase the
residential density in the city. The overlay zone will have
three basic elements: modification of density limits,
modification of lot requirements, and accommodation of
adaptive reuse.
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 7
● Form-Based Code: Millcreek—Conventional zoning focuses on
permissible property uses and the control of the use through
floor area ratios, dwelling units per acre, setbacks, etc. Design
guidelines can be used to complement the conventional
zone but the guidelines are only advisory. Form-based code
regulates land development of a designated area (from parcel
to multi-block development) to achieve a specific physical
form. A form-based code is a regulation adopted by the
municipality rather than a mere guideline. A few cities have
adopted form-based codes, but the practice is not widespread.
West Valley City has adopted form-based code for its city
center, and Clearfield, Millcreek, Provo, and Salt Lake City have
all used form-based code for specific development areas.
Under form-based code, the form and scale of a project
determine use rather than land use type and density. Form-
based codes are generally developed through a collaborative
process involving residents, municipal officials, consultants,
and developers. This process creates a vision for development
that includes the interaction between streets, buildings, and
open space in terms of form and scale. The Form-Based
Codes Institute uses the graphic below to show the
difference in land use between conventional zoning and
form-based code (see Figure I.4).
Millcreek has adopted a form-based code for a site at 3000
South Richmond Street. The form-based code has facilitated
the development of a 328-unit apartment project, which will
include street-level retail. Achieving the density of 100 units/
acre would not have been possible without form-based code.
● Form-Based Code: South Salt Lake—South Salt Lake wrote
two form-based codes, one focusing on transit-oriented
development along the S-Line streetcar between 500 East
and State Street, and another focused on the city’s
redevelopment area between State Street and I-15, and I-80
and 2100 South. Between 2012 and 2016, the city entitled
over 600 new dwellings along the Streetcar Corridor, in
three major projects east of State Street. West of State Street,
in South Salt Lake’s downtown, two projects were approved
in 2016 and 2017, totaling 195 units, most of which are set
aside as affordable housing. In 2019, the city approved a
significant mixed-use project incorporating 150,000 square
feet of office and housing units in a 10-story multifamily
structure at approximately 2200 South Main Street.
South Salt Lake’s two form-based codes facilitated a
significant redevelopment of the streetcar corridor and an
ageing industrial area, bringing hundreds of new households,
jobs, and retail/restaurant opportunities to the city. The
Downtown South Salt Lake Zoning Ordinance and Design
Standards, in particular, encouraged the adaptive reuse of
existing industrial buildings. As a result, the city is not only
experiencing significant population growth and new
development, but is also enjoying the benefits of reusing
existing buildings, in the form of restaurants, breweries and
distilleries, art galleries, and small retail spaces.
● Adaptive Reuse: South Salt Lake and Salt Lake City—The first
local adaption of a motel to housing occurred more than 20
years ago. The Frontier Motel, located in South Salt Lake at
3579 South State Street, was converted from a 14-unit motel
to transitional housing. Following conversion, the Salt Lake
County Division of Housing and Community Development,
purchased the complex. The Frontier is currently part of the
affordable housing portfolio of Housing Connect (formerly
the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake).
Salt Lake City, in recent years, has had a number of
adaptive reuse housing projects. Most notable is Palmer
Court, a 201-unit apartment project at 999 South Main
Street. Prior to becoming rental housing for extremely low-
income households, the structure was a Holliday Inn. The
motel was converted in 2009 to affordable rental units.
Two projects, converting struggling commercial space into
mixed use projects including housing, are in the approval
process in Salt Lake City. The conversion of Lamplighter
Square, 1615 South Foothill Boulevard, will demolish existing
commercial offices, a restaurant, gas station, and motel. The
new development will include over 100 residential units, with
a share of the units affordable. The second project, located at
2100 South and 2100 East, will convert the use from a
restaurant, barbershop, tailor, salon, and commercial offices
to 99 apartments units and16,000 square feet of retail.
Figure I.4: Comparison of Form-Based Code to Conventional Zoning
Conventional Zoning
Density use, FAR (floor area ratio), setbacks,
parking requirements, maximum
building heights specified
Zoning Design Guidelines
Conventional zoning requirements,
plus frequency of openings and surface
articulation specified
Form-Based Codes
Street and building types (or mix of types),
build-to lines, number of floors, and percentage
of built site frontage specified.
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM8
II. Preservation of Affordable Housing
Background
Affordable housing preservation programs usually, but not
always, target privately owned subsidized rental housing. The
subsidies most often include HUD’s Project-Based Rental
Assistance (PBRA) program and the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) program. Privately owned subsidized rental
properties are required to remain affordable for a specific
period, depending on the program. Once the time requirement
has expired, the property owner has three options: (1) renew
the original subsidy, (2) secure a different subsidy that maintains
the property’s affordability, or (3) opt out of the subsidy
program. Opting out almost always leads to a loss of affordable
units as rents at the once-affordable project are increased to
near market-rate levels. In high-rent markets, owners of
subsidized rental properties have a strong incentive to opt out
when their subsidy expires.
As indicated above, preservation efforts are not solely limited
to subsidized rental property. Unsubsidized affordable rental
properties and owner-occupied single-family homes also have
been targeted for preservation. Generally, nonprofits and for-
profit, private entities are involved in the preservation of
unsubsidized affordable housing.
Why Preservation is a Best Practice
● Preserves Low Costs—The preservation and rehabilitation of
existing affordable units typically cost, at least, 40% less
than the cost of new affordable rental units. Preservation
avoids the high development costs of new construction and
the neighborhood opposition (Nimbyism) associated with
developing new units.
● Preserves Affordability—The number of LIHTC and HUD Proj-
ect-Based units at risk of opting out over the next five years to-
tals 2,493 units (see Tables II.1–II.3). The loss of any of these units
will increase the shortage of affordable rental housing for very
low-income renter households. The current shortage of afford-
able units for these renters is 49,500 units (see Table II.4).
● Preserves Investment—At-risk subsidized units represent mil-
lions of dollars of taxpayer investment in affordable housing.
If owners opt out, this investment is lost. Since the com-
mencement in 1988 of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
Program, 27 apartment projects in Utah with 968 affordable
units have opted out of their affordability status. Replacing
these lost units today would cost well over $100 million.
● Counters Rapidly Rising Housing Costs in Hot Markets—Rapid
economic growth increases rental rates, which renders any
new units much less likely to be affordable and increases the
likelihood of owners opting out of affordable projects (see Ta-
ble II.5). High growth conditions and rising rental rates place a
premium on preservation efforts. In a high-growth market,
preservation buyers face fierce competition from investors.
● Accesses Multiple, Well-Established Funding Sources—The
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program has been the most
important source of funding for the acquisition, preserva-
tion, and rehabilitation of existing affordable units. Since
Table II.1: Rental Properties at Risk of Opting Out, 2020–2025
Year Project-Based Units LIHTC Units Total
2020 63 266 1,043
2021 133 272 459
2022 320 280 600
2023 136 382 518
2024 99 351 1,341
2025 191 0 191
Total 942 1,551 2,493
Source: HUD Multifamily Assistance and Section 8 Contracts Database and Utah Housing
Corporation
Table II.2: Expiration Date and At-Risk Units in HUD
Apartment Communities in Utah
Property Name Expiration Year Assisted Units
Mountain View Apartments 2020 29
Foothill Manor 2020 14
Parkwood Apartment 2020 20
Brigham City Senior Apartments 2021 29
Bramwell Court 2021 18
Midshore Manor I 2021 62
Midshore Manor II 2021 24
Capitol Villa 2022 108
Dominguez Park I and II 2022 50
Dominguez Park I and II 2022 60
St. Mark’s Gardens 2022 72
Calvary Tower 2022 30
Wedgewood Villa 2023 50
Union Gardens 2023 50
Operation Conquest 2023 15
Canyon Cove 2023 21
St. Benedicts Manor II 2024 40
Glenbrook Apartments 2024 24
Jefferson Circle 2024 20
Foxborough 2024 15
Lorna Doone Apartments 2025 141
Black Hills Apartments 2025 50
Total 942
Source: HUD Multifamily Assistance and Section 8 Contracts Database
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 9
1988 the program has provided funding to acquire and re-
habilitate 6,644 units, an average of 229 affordable units an-
nually. Both the 9% and 4% tax credit programs have been
used to preserve affordable units (see Figure II.1). Another
well-established source of funding, tax increment financing
from a redevelopment agency has provided significant sup-
port for the preservation and rehabilitation of affordable
housing. Salt Lake City has recently committed $1,000,000
to the rehabilitation of the Jackson Apartments in the city’s
central business district. Other common sources of preser-
vation funding are HUD HOME dollars, Community Develop-
ment Block Grant funding (primarily single-family rehabilita-
tion), and the private sector (Restore Utah).
● Provides Recapitalization of Affordable Units—Recapitaliza-
tion is an important component of preservation programs.
Aging subsidized and unsubsidized units often need recapi-
talization to fund improvements. Of the 28,000 LIHTC units
Table II.3: Expiration Date of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Projects in Utah, 2020–2025
Name Address City Year of Expiration AMI Target Income LIHTC Units
Riverwood Cove Apartments 592 N. Riverside Drive Salt Lake City 2020 31 110
Liberty Heights Apartments 8176 S 1300 E Sandy 2020 46 104
Sun Ridge Apartments 277 S 1000 E St. George 2020 52 52
Elk Meadows Apartments 2627 W Kilby Road Park City 2021 44 96
Lexington Park Apartments 2293 W. Lexington Park Drive West Valley City 2021 48 80
Hidden Oaks V 6330 Dixie Drive West Jordan 2021 49 96
Mill Hollow 598 S 100 E Bountiful 2022 36 16
Riverside Cove 558-560 N. Redwood Road Salt Lake City 2022 45 19
Rio Grande Hotel 428 W 300 S Salt Lake City 2022 29 49
McGregor 810 E 25th Street Ogden 2022 29 55
Parkway Commons 875 W Meadowbrook Expressway Salt Lake City 2022 45 81
Holladay Hills II 3678-3680 S Highland Drive Salt Lake City 2022 43 60
Roselane Apartments 105 S Fairfield Road Layton 2023 57 64
Millcreek Meadows 885 E. Meadow Pine Court Salt Lake City 2023 51 56
Holladay Hills I 3714 S Highland Drive Salt Lake City 2023 47 70
Southgate I 609 S 300 W Cedar City 2023 41 42
Canyon Pointe I 1737 W 360 N St. George 2023 46 50
Southgate II 468 S 75 W Cedar City 2023 33 30
Cedar Crest Apartments 1926 S. West Temple Salt Lake City 2023 28 12
Stonecrest PUD 211 E Crestone Avenue South Salt Lake 2023 47 16
Wedgewood Apartments 1888 N. Wedgewood Lane Cedar City 2023 26 24
Royal Hotel 2522 Wall Avenue Ogden 2023 21 18
Northfield Village 315 W 1175 N Cedar City 2024 43 52
Westgate Apartments (Provo)1187-1189 W 200 N Provo 2024 38 8
Ridgeland Apartments 2685 S. Ridgeland Park Dr.West Valley City 2024 49 64
Art Space II 353 W 200 S Salt Lake City 2024 37 53
Riverview Townhomes 1665 S. Riverside Drive Salt Lake City 2024 33 61
Willow Cove 580 N 1187 W Orem 2024 21 8
Sierra Pointe I Apartments 1503 N 2100 W St. George 2024 46 97
KD Apartments 1460-1490 W 25 N Clearfield 2024 11 8
Total 1,551
Source: Utah Housing Corporation
Table II.4: Gap of Affordable and Available Rental Units for
Renters at 0–50% AMI in Utah
Year
Renter Households
at ≤50%
Available and
Affordable
Affordability
Gap
2010 111,251 70,199 41,052
2011 113,717 78,010 35,707
2012 114,283 68,570 45,713
2013 116,299 69,012 47,287
2014 118,947 71,844 47,103
2015 121,701 77,037 44,664
2016 119,230 74,161 45,069
2017 123,432 75,417 48,015
2018 123,861 74,317 49,545
AARC 1.35%0.72%2.38%
Source: HUD CHAS, 2010–2015, and Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, 2016–2018
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM10
in Utah, 6,100 are at least 20 years old, and by 2025 that
number will grow to 11,400 units. Many of these older units
will need recapitalization for improvements and updating.
LIHTC is a common source of funding for recapitalization
through acquisition and rehab. The original partners of an
LIHTC are allowed to sell their project after a 15-year holding
period. At that point, a new owner can apply for tax credits
to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of the afford-
able LIHTC project.
● Enjoys Broad Support and Less Opposition—Preservation has
been a long-standing practice in the housing policy toolkit
of many cities and nonprofits, and for good reason. Preser-
vation is a rare policy that has positive, quantifiable out-
comes with a minimum of local opposition.
● Satisfies S.B. 34 - Preservation is one of S.B. 34’s strategies:
“(strategy L) preserve existing moderate-income housing.”
Framework for Implementation
● Give Preservation Priority—Commit to preservation as a
housing strategy. Set performance targets and establish
metrics to measure progress. Institute collaboration with
stakeholders; owners of affordable housing projects, non-
profits and for-profit developers, HUD, and Utah Housing
Corporation.
● Identify At-Risk Properties—Create an inventory of at-risk af-
fordable projects and their characteristics, such as types of
subsidies, rent restrictions, and expiration dates of afford-
ability. Contact owners regarding their intentions about
opting out and recapitalization needs.
● Target Resources for Preservation—Assist in financing preser-
vation efforts through several potential funding sources:
HUD HOME dollars, CDBG grants, LIHTC financing (through
housing authorities), and tax increment financing.
● Collaborate with Preservation Entities—Nonprofit and for-prof-
it organizations engage in preservation of affordable housing.
Collaboration with experienced entities will improve out-
comes. The local landscape for preservation expanded in
March of 2020 with the creation of the Housing Preservation
Fund. The fund is backed by the Clark and Christine Ivory
Foundation, Intermountain Healthcare, and Zions Bank, plus
a state appropriation of $2.5 million from the Utah Legisla-
ture. The fund will contract with Utah Nonprofit Housing Cor-
poration to manage preservation activities. Utah Nonprofit
Housing Corporation has, over many years, acquired and re-
habilitated hundreds of affordable units in Utah. The Housing
Preservation Fund hopes to leverage seed money into $100
million for affordable housing preservation.
● S.B. 34 Strategies—Twenty-eight municipalities have select-
ed preservation of moderate-income housing and 14 have
selected preservation of subsidized low- to moderate-in-
come housing as their S.B. 34 strategies to encourage hous-
ing affordability (see Tables II.6 and II.7).
Examples of Best Practice
● A Nonprofit’s Innovative Layering of Financial Support for Pres-
ervation—NeighborWorks Salt Lake, a 40-year-old local non-
profit, has focused housing preservation and rehabilitation
efforts on two neighborhoods in Salt Lake County: the Gua-
dalupe neighborhood in Salt Lake City and neighborhoods
on the west side of Murray. With the financial support of
HUD’s HOME and CDBG programs, tax increment financing
revenue, Salt Lake City’s financial assistance, and private sec-
Table II.5: Rental Rate Increase in Wasatch Front Counties,
2008–2019
Year Davis Salt Lake Utah Weber
2008 $715 $793 $719 $651
2009 $701 $740 $701 $639
2010 $711 $720 $716 $640
2011 $701 $754 $753 $655
2012 $720 $814 $788 $684
2013 $756 $850 $807 $678
2014 $796 $865 $868 $698
2015 $839 $907 $924 $754
2016 $933 $949 $1,041 $810
2017 $1,005 $1,011 $1,097 $864
2018 $1,060 $1,060 $1,138 $937
2019 $1,102 $1,145 $1,188 $1,021
AARC 2008–2019 4.01%3.40%4.67%4.17%
AARC 2016–2019 5.07%6.46%4.50%8.02%
Source: CBRE, The Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market, and Cushman Wakefield,
Annual Apartment Market Report (Salt Lake County)
Figure II.1: Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Rental Units
Financed Through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
(6,644 units, 1987–2017
Source: Utah Housing Corporation
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
19
8
7
19
8
9
19
9
1
19
9
3
19
9
5
19
9
7
19
9
9
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
19
8
7
19
8
9
19
9
1
19
9
3
19
9
5
19
9
7
19
9
9
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
UnitsAnnual Avg. 229 units
11,872
15,118
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
n
i
t
s
Single-family Multifamily
9.3%
10.7%
10.9%
11.7%
16.8%
17.7%
18.7%
19.0%
19.1%
19.2%
19.3%
19.5%
22.3%
23.0%
23.6%
25.3%
26.0%
26.1%
26.5%
27.5%
28.2%
28.3%
29.3%
31.2%
31.4%
31.4%
31.5%
32.6%
32.6%
32.8%
33.4%
33.5%
33.9%
34.2%
34.5%
34.5%
34.7%
35.2%
35.8%
36.7%
38.2%
39.2%
40.4%
41.5%
46.2%
47.1%
48.3%
49.1%
53.0%
55.7%
59.1%
69.6%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%
North Dakota
Alaska
Connecticut
West Virgina
Louisiana
Illinois
Mississippi
Wyoming
New Jersey
Maryland
Oklahoma
Delaware
Iowa
Arkansas
Vermont
Virginia
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
New York
South Dakota
Kansas
Kentucky
Alabama
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Nebraska
Massachusetts
Ohio
Wisconsin
Montana
US
Missouri
Rhode Island
Minnesota
Texas
Indiana
Maine
South Carolina
DC
California
North Carolina
Michigan
Tennessee
Georgia
Arizona
Oregon
Florida
Colorado
Utah
Nevada
Washington
Idaho
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Units Annual avg. 229 units
Detached Attached
Garage ConversionAbove Garage
Interior (upper level)
Interior (lower level)
54%Long-term rental (rental)
19%Short-term rental (vacation)
65%Primary residence (for owner)
40%Other*
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 11
tor contributions, NeighborWorks Salt Lake has preserved
and rehabilitated dozens of homes through acquisition and
rehab financing in the Guadalupe neighborhood, along
with home improvement loans, and home improvement
grants. NeighborWorks Salt Lake has also revitalized,
through similar innovative funding, neighborhoods on the
west side of Murray. Twelve deteriorating homes were pur-
chased for $1.98 million, rehabbed at a cost of $718,000, and
sold to moderate-income households. NeighborWorks Salt
Lake also provided $179,500 in favorable home loans to
eight Murray homeowners and $44,761 in home improve-
ment grants to seven Murray homeowners.
This example demonstrates the value of a collaborative
effort, spearheaded by a dedicated nonprofit, targeting
public and private resources for the preservation of afford-
able housing.
● Two Public Housing Authorities’ $21 Million Rehabilitation
Project—A joint venture with Housing Connect, formerly the
Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, and the Hous-
ing Authority of Salt Lake City has secured $21 million in tax
credit funding for the hard costs to rehabilitate 299 afford-
able units in two high-rise projects; City Plaza and the Coun-
ty High Rise. These two projects were developed in the
1970s as traditional public housing properties and owned
by the two public housing authorities. City Plaza, with 150
units, provided subsidized housing for very low– and ex-
tremely low–income disabled and elderly households, while
the 149-unit County High Rise provided housing for very
low– and extremely low–income households of all ages.
The joint venture is known as New City Plaza, LLC, and
made use of HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)
program, which “gives public housing authorities a powerful
tool to preserve and improve public housing properties.”
Through the RAD program, the 299 units move from public
housing to HUD project-based vouchers. The vouchers were
critical as a revenue source, making the tax credit program
financially feasible and paving the way for $21 million in
funding for rehabilitation of the units. As public housing
units, City Plaza and the County High Rise were losing mon-
ey and had become cost burdens for the housing authori-
ties. This raised the inevitable question, Should the units be
sold? Housing authorities do sell their public housing units
when costs become too burdensome. If the buyer is a
for-profit developer, the affordable units are most likely lost
to the affordable housing inventory. However, in the case of
City Plaza and the County High Rise, affordability will be pre-
served through the use of HUD’s RAD program and tax cred-
it funding. These two programs make the rehabilitation of
299 units possible and relieve two housing authorities of fi-
nancially troublesome public housing properties.
This example demonstrates the role that aggressive pub-
lic housing authorities can play in the preservation and re -
habilitation of affordable housing units. Utah has 18 public
housing authorities, each with its priority for preservation.
Variations on a Theme
● Incentives—Some preservation programs in municipalities
outside of Utah include incentives through property tax re -
bates or tax exemptions on the incremental increase in a
property’s value due to rehabilitation and preservation.
● Preservation Compacts—The largest compact, The Chicago
Preservation Compact brings together Cook County’s pub-
lic, private, and nonprofit leaders to address the loss of af-
fordable housing.
● Preservation Funds—There are several dozen preservation
funds throughout the country. Operational geographies vary
from nation, region, states, and cities. The funding level is of-
ten tens of millions of dollars with the largest fund being the
Partnership for the Bay’s Future Fund, which has funding
commitments of $500 million. Seed funding was provided by
Facebook, the Ford Foundation, and Kaiser Permanente. Kai-
ser Permanente is also involved with two other preservation
funds, both operating in Oakland, California. Most funds tar-
get low- to very low-income households, and their missions
include production and preservation of affordable housing.
Table II.6: Cities That Have Selected Preserving Existing
Moderate-Income Housing as an S.B. 34 Strategy
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services
Table II.7: Cities That Have Selected to Preserve Subsidized
Low- to Moderate-Income Units on a Long-Term Basis
as an S.B. 34 Strategy
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services
Alpine
Bountiful
Centerville
Clearfield
Farmington
Farr West
Fruit Heights
Grantsville
Harrisville
Heber
Herriman
Kaysville
Midvale
Millcreek
Murray
North Salt Lake
Pleasant View
Provo
Salt Lake County
Sandy
South Ogden
South Salt Lake
Taylorsville
Washington
Terrace
West Bountiful
West Jordan
West Valley City
White City
Cedar City
Harrisville
Heber
Kearns
Logan
Magna
Orem
Pleasant Grove
Providence
Provo
Smithfield
Tremonton
Washington City
West Valley City
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM12
Background
Redevelopment agencies (RDAs) in Utah have used tax
increment financing or over 50 years to spur economic
development. Tax increment financing is used to help finance
investment, generally for 20 to 25 years, in a targeted geographical
area designated as a project area. At the establishment of a
project area, the current local property tax revenue from the land
and structures within the project area becomes the “base”
amount of property tax revenue. As economic development
occurs in the project area, property values rise, and property tax
revenues increase. The incremental increase in property taxes
above the “base” amount provides the funding for redevelopment.
The tax increment funds often finance an RDA bond for
infrastructure development—roads, sidewalk, utilities, sewer,
etc.—or the funds can be used to pay for land and construction
of affordable housing within the RDA.
Why Tax Increment Financing Is a Best Practice
● Provides Funding Targeted for Housing Needs of Moderate-
and Low-Income Households—In most cases, the project’s
housing fund receives at least 10% of the tax increment rev
enue. These funds are for “income-targeted housing” within
the city’s boundaries. Income-targeted housing is defined as
housing affordable to moderate-income households, that is,
households with incomes at 80% or less of the area median
income. Since the establishment of their RDAs, the five most
aggressive cities have facilitated the development of 13,801
housing units, many of them affordable units (see Table III.1).
● Provides Funding for Multiple Uses—The RDA, as spelled out
in Title 17C of the Utah Code, “shall use the agency’s housing
allocation to pay for part or all of the cost of land or con-
struction of income-targeted housing…pay for the rehabili-
tation of income-targeted housing…replace housing units
lost as a result of development” or transfer tax increment
funds to the local housing authority or the Olene Walker
Housing Loan Fund for the development of moderate- and
low-income housing.8
● Provides a Self-Financing Source of Funds—Tax increment fi-
nancing does not require approval at the ballot box or ap-
proval by federal agencies or politicians. The project areas
are a self-financing source of funding for affordable housing
projects.
● Provides a Stable Source of Funding—The creation of a proj-
ect area requires the approval, usually through interlocal
agreements, of the taxing entities within the boundaries of
the Community Reinvestment Area (CRA). Legislation in
2016 changed the nomenclature to CRA.9 The interlocal
agreement specifies the share of the tax increment allocated
to the tax entities and the project area. Once established,
the project area represents a stable source of funding for
new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of afford-
able housing within the municipality. See Tables III.2–III.3 for
project areas by type and location.
● Provides an Opportunity for Public-Private Partnership—The
use of a project area’s housing set-aside funds often results
in a public-private partnership between the project area
and a private or nonprofit developer of affordable housing.
The availability of project area funds provides a strong finan-
cial incentive for a developer to partner with the RDA. Since
affordable housing projects present economic challenges to
developers due to low rents, the tax increment financing
provided by the project area makes the project financially
feasible.
III. Redevelopment Agencies, Tax Increment Financing,
and Housing Affordability
Table III.1: Housing Units Facilitated by Tax Increment
Financing in Selected Cities
City Units
Salt Lake City 7,000
Midvale 3,252
Orem 2,007
Murray 1,026
Salt Lake County 516
Total 13,801
Source: Utah Association of RDAs
Table III.2: Project Areas by Type in Cities and Counties, 2018
Unincorporated
County Project Areas City
Project
Areas
CRA 0 CRA 1
URA 2 URA 9
EDA 6 EDA 36
CDA 21 CDA 55
NDP 1 NDP 46
RDA 0 RDA 63
Amendment 0 Amendment 2
Unspecified 2 Unspecified 12
Total 32 224
Source: Utah Association of RDAs
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 13
● Provides an Opportunity to Offset Higher Housing Prices from
Gentrification—RDAs were first created, some 50 years ago,
to spur local economic development and neighborhood re-
vitalization, or “urban renewal” in the parlance of the day.
Economic development continues as the primary mission of
RDAs; however, economic development often comes from
neighborhood gentrification and higher housing costs. The
housing funds generated by a CRAs project area can help
preserve existing affordable housing.
County/City RD
A
CD
A
ED
A
UR
A
ND
P
Unspecified
Beaver County Unincorporated 8
Box Elder County Unincorporated 4
Cache County Unincorporated 1
Brigham City 1 1 2
Perry City 1
Tremonton City 1 1
Logan City 4 2
North Logan City 1 1 1
Smithfield
Carbon County Unincorporated 1
Price 1
Wellington 1
Davis County Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bountiful 2
Centerville 2 1
Clearfield 1 1 3 2
Farmington 1 2
Layton 1 3
North Layton 3
Syracuse 2 1
West Bountiful 3 1
West Point 1
Woods Cross 3 5
Iron County Unincorporated 10 1
Brian Head 1
Cedar City 1 1 1
Morgan County Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0
Morgan 1 1
Rich County Unincorporated
Garden City 1
Salt Lake County Unincorporated 2 1
Cottonwood Heights 1
Draper 2 5
Herriman 2
Holladay 1 1
Midvale 2
Murray 2 1 2
Table III.3: Project Areas by County and City
County/City RD
A
CD
A
ED
A
UR
A
ND
P
Unspecified
Riverton 1
Salt Lake City 3 2 1 4
Sandy 1 4 1 2
South Jordan 3 2 2 3
South Salt Lake 2 2
Taylorsville 1 2
West Jordan 1 2 5
West Valley
Sanpete County 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mount Pleasant 1
Salina 1
Summit County Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0
Park City 2 1
Tooele City 1 1
Uintah County Unincorporated
Naples City 1
Vernal City 1
Utah County Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0
American Fork 2 1
Eagle Mountain 2 1
Lehi City
Lindon 1 1
Orem
Pleasant Grove 2
Provo 3 2
Spanish Fork 2 1 1
Springville 1
Vineyard 3
Washington County Unincorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. George 2 4
Weber County Unincorporated 1 1
Ogden 13 1 3 1
Pleasant View 1
Riverdale 1 1
Roy 2
South Ogden 1 1
Total 59 67 32 12 37 11
Source: Utah RDA Association.
● Provides an Opportunity for Local Officials to Hand-Pick Devel-
oper and Location of Affordable Housing—In June 2018, the
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City invited developers
to submit proposals for developing affordable housing in
the city to be supported by $10 million in RDA financial as-
sistance. The RDA selected developers and reserved $4.5
million in funding for projects in high-opportunity neigh-
borhoods—areas with higher quality-of-life measures for
schools, housing, jobs, and income. This example under-
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM14
scores how RDA funding can guide affordable housing de-
velopment, its location, and the selection of the most quali-
fied developer.
● Satisfies S.B. 34—Using a Redevelopment Agency’s Tax Incre-
ment Financing for moderate and low-income housing
meets one of the requirements of S.B. 34.
Framework for Implementation
● Establish a Project Area—Sixty-three cities and 8 counties in
Utah have RDAs, with a combined total of 256 project areas
(Tables III.2–III.3). State statutory guidelines govern the es-
tablishment of project areas. The guidelines require a gener-
al description of the proposed project area’s current social
and economic conditions and how establishing a project
area will promote economic development that “but for” RDA
assistance would not occur. The project area must be consis-
tent with the municipality’s general plan, and the financial
assistance anticipated described. While project areas differ
widely in scope and projected tax revenue, the sheer num-
ber of project areas demonstrates the potential of tax incre-
ment financing as a tool for developing and preserving af-
fordable housing. In addition to meeting statutory
guidelines, a project area must have approval from the tax
entities within the proposed project area.
● Develop a Strategy for Housing Fund Expenditures—For most
of the project areas, a housing fund was created at incep-
tion. The share of tax increment revenue earmarked for the
housing fund varies by project area, from at least 10% to as
much as 20%. As mentioned above, RDAs have a fair amount
of latitude regarding housing fund expenditures, including
the purchase of land, construction, infrastructure, preserva-
tion, etc. The one restriction is funds must assist moderate-
and low-income households with affordable housing.
Many cities have project areas that don’t generate signifi-
cant amounts of housing funds. Nevertheless, low annual
dollar amounts can be accumulated over a few years, pro-
viding sufficient funding for down payment assistance, pres-
ervation loans and grants, or rental assistance. If an RDA
lacks a strategy for disbursing tax increment funds, the funds
can be transferred to the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund
to support statewide programs for affordable housing. Most
important, housing funds should not sit idle on the side-
lines. With a severe shortage of housing, particularly afford-
able housing, aggressive housing fund strategies should
employ tax increment dollars.
● Assess Policy Considerations—In Utah, RDAs and tax incre-
ment financing have been relatively free of controversy;
however, in many states, there has been sharp criticism of
tax increment financing. Some principal policy consider-
ations should include transparency, absence of favoritism,
demonstration of public benefit, and sensitivity to the im-
pacts of economic development on local government enti-
ties, notably increased enrollment at public schools.
Examples of Best Practice
● West Capitol Hill Project Area—In 1996, the RDA of Salt Lake
City created the West Capitol Hill Project Area. The boundar-
ies are 300 North to 800 North and 400 West to 200 West.
This 18-block area includes Salt Lake City’s Marmalade
neighborhood. The project area has generated $5.8 million
in tax increment financing, which has helped revitalize the
neighborhood, preserve a historic building, and develop 12
owner-occupied townhomes, a plaza, city library, and, cur-
rently under construction, 252 market-rate rental units and
12 two-bedroom live/work units. In addition to assisting in
development costs, the Salt Lake City RDA provided a land
write-down on the sale of the property. The tax increment
financing meets several goals of the RDA: “stabilization
through the rehabilitation of single-family, owner-occupied
homes, preservation of the neighborhood’s historic fabric,
and diversification of the tax base.”10
● Central Business District Project Area—The RDA of Salt Lake
City created the Central Business District Project Area in
1983. The trigger year—the first year tax increment funds
were disbursed—was 2009. In 2018, the RDA received $25
million in tax increment funding from the Central Business
District, the largest single-year funding level of any of the
256 project areas in Utah. The RDA has recently provided
substantial support for a large housing development at 255
South Main. The site had become blighted due to a half-fin-
ished mixed-use development. In 2012, the developer ran
into financial problems and structural engineering issues
and eventually lost the project to bankruptcy. Over the next
five-years, the abandoned site and structure sat idle and be -
came a well-known eyesore in downtown Salt Lake City.
In 2017 the parcel was put up for auction, and the RDA
purchased the site for $4 million. A year later, the RDA en-
tered into a purchase agreement with Brinshore Develop-
ment, LLC of Chicago, for the 1.1-acre site. The RDA agreed
to issue a seller’s note for $4 million to the developer for the
land and provide a $9.2 million loan for the construction of a
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 15
190 unit mixed-income housing project. Only 15 rental units
are market-rate while 175 are tax credit units affordable to
renters at 57% AMI. The total value of the project is $46.7
million. The one-bedroom tax credit units will rent for $930
and the two-bedroom units for $1,110. These rents, which
include utilities, are at least 30% below market-rate rents for
new units in the Central Business District. For the many
low-income employees working in downtown retail, offices,
or restaurants, 175 new affordable units will be a welcome
addition to the “tight” and expensive housing market.
● The Redevelopment Agency of Murray—The Redevelopment
Agency of Murray created the Fireclay Redevelopment Area
in 2005. The tax increment was triggered in 2014. Since then,
the tax increment funding has been about $800,000 annual-
ly. The project area’s boundaries are State Street on the east,
4500 South on the south, the heavy rail line on the west, and
Big Cottonwood Creek (4000 South) on the north. The proj-
ect area facilitates mixed-use development in a blighted
area dominated by deteriorating commercial buildings.
Since 2012 the project area has seen several large apart-
ment communities with affordable and market-rate units.
The RDA entered into development agreements with Ham-
let Homes, Fireclay Investment Partners, and Parley’s Part-
ners. Hamlet Homes developed 41 condominium units, and
10 townhomes live/work units. Fireclay Investment Partners
completed two of three phases of development. The com-
pleted phases included two large apartment communities
with a total of 400 market-rate units and 268 tax credit units.
The third development agreement was with Parley’s Part-
ners. Phase I is a 137-unit family apartment community.
Phases II and III include a 65-unit family apartment commu-
nity and a 105-unit senior community. Three-quarters of the
units developed by Parley’s Partners (228 units) are tax cred-
it units. The RDA’s development agreements reimbursed the
developers for roads and environmental remediation.
In 1999, the Redevelopment Agency of Murray created
the Smelter Site Redevelopment Area to improve a blighted
area that included the smokestacks of American Smelting
and Refining Company. The project area is now the location
of Costco and the Intermountain Medical Center. Tax incre-
ment at the Smelter project area was triggered in 2009 and
generates about $900,000 annually.
In contrast to the large housing projects discussed above,
tax increment financing from the Smelter project area has
helped facilitate the acquisition and rehabilitation of nearly
50 homes for moderate- to low-income families.
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM16
Background
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a smaller dwelling on the
same property as a single-family structure. As limited housing
supply continues to push prices and rents higher, affordability
remains a challenge for many, especially those entering the
housing market and those looking to downsize. While accessory
units have been around for some time, they have emerged in
recently as a viable option in addressing affordable housing
challenges. Their flexibility to serve as an affordable option
while providing additional income makes ADUs an attractive
housing product.
The building of ADUs is still somewhat of a challenge for most
communities. Financing alternatives are limited. Currently, the
only viable option is to use personal savings or a home equity
line of credit. Additionally, lenders may undervalue ADUs, and
zoning may require parking or other burdensome stipulations.
Cities are continuing to explore how to fit ADUs within existing
zoning. Regulations and the permitting process can vary across
the same municipalities, making it confusing for developers or
potential owners. Additional requirements such as floor size
restrictions, permitting and impact fees, and occupancy
restrictions (family member versus non-family member),
continue to be challenges for the construction of ADUs.
ADUs come in many different shapes and sizes, but are
classified either as detached structures on the same lot,
attached but as a separate unit within a single structure, or as
an interior unit such as a basement or upper level. As shown in
Figure IV.1, there are numerous ways to integrate an additional
unit into an existing property.
Why ADUs Are a Best Practice
● Provide an Affordable Housing Option—According to a recent
survey completed by the Terner Center for Housing Innova-
tion out of UC Berkeley, ADU rents average 58% below market
value. ADUs are an essential tool for delivering affordable
units to the market. They can quickly provide affordable op-
tions in areas with higher rents increasing affordable housing
in owner-occupied, high-cost, residential neighborhoods.
● Deliver Units to the Market Quickly—The construction time-
line of new ADUs is relatively fast compared with a tradition-
al dwelling unit such as single-family or apartments. Howev-
er, the timeframe can vary based on the approval process.
● Generate Wealth—ADUs offer an attractive housing alterna-
tive that benefits both renters and homeowners in various
community types. Financial gain through rental income is
the most common motivation for the homeowner-develop-
ers who create ADUs, followed by offering housing for a
family member or caretaker. ADUs provide homeowners
with additional income to maintain their properties, sustain
their mortgages, and increase disposable income.11
● Appeal to All Ages—Because ADUs tend to charge be-
low-market rents, they are an affordable option to those en-
tering the housing market. They also provide empty nesters
with a possibility of aging in place while renting their larger
homes to a family member or caretaker. ADUs are an attrac-
tive housing or investment option for older generations and
allow families to expand beyond their primary residence.
For example, in Portland, Oregon, ADUs are disproportion-
ately owned by 55- to 64-year-olds.
● Fit into Existing Neighborhoods—ADUs can create lower-cost
housing without disrupting architectural or community
character. Accessory units provide a more dispersed and in-
cremental way of adding homes to a neighborhood and
avoiding Nimbyism. Additionally, ADUs do not need new
infrastructure investments and can connect to existing wa-
ter, sewer, and power lines.
● ADUs Are Environmentally Sustainable—Their median square
feet per resident is 44% lower than newly constructed sin-
gle-family residences, and some ADUs have a notable num-
ber of above-code green features. For example. Portland,
Oregon, ADUs are associated with an average of 0.93 cars
per rental, lower than the city average of 1.31 vehicles per
rental unit. Of those 0.93, just under half are parked on the
street.12 ADUs are likely to have a low environmental impact
compared with other dwellings.
● Satisfy S.B. 34—Permitting ADUs is one of S.B. 34’s affordable
housing strategies.
IV. Accessory Dwelling Units and Housing Affordability
Figure IV.1: Different Ways to Integrate ADUs with
Existing Housing
02004006008001,0001,200
19
8
7
19
8
9
19
9
1
19
9
3
19
9
5
19
9
7
19
9
9
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017UnitsAnnual Avg. 229 units 11,87215,11805,00010,00015,00020,00025,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Permitted Units Single-family Multifamily
9.3%
10.7%
10.9%
11.7%
16.8%
17.7%
18.7%
19.0%
19.1%
19.2%
19.3%
19.5%
22.3%
23.0%
23.6%
25.3%
26.0%
26.1%
26.5%
27.5%
28.2%
28.3%
29.3%
31.2%
31.4%
31.4%
31.5%
32.6%
32.6%
32.8%
33.4%
33.5%
33.9%
34.2%
34.5%
34.5%
34.7%
35.2%
35.8%
36.7%38.2%39.2%40.4%41.5%46.2%47.1%48.3%49.1%53.0%55.7%59.1%69.6%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%
North Dakota
Alaska
Connecticut
West Virgina
Louisiana
Illinois
Mississippi
Wyoming
New Jersey
Maryland
Oklahoma
Delaware
Iowa
Arkansas
Vermont
Virginia
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
New York
South Dakota
Kansas
Kentucky
Alabama
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Nebraska
Massachusetts
Ohio
Wisconsin
Montana
US
Missouri
Rhode Island
Minnesota
Texas
Indiana
Maine
South Carolina
DC
CaliforniaNorth CarolinaMichiganTennesseeGeorgiaArizonaOregonFloridaColoradoUtahNevadaWashingtonIdaho
0
20040060080010001200
Units Annual avg. 229 units
Detached Attached
Garage ConversionAbove Garage
Interior (upper level)
Interior (lower level)
54%Long-term rental (rental)
19%Short-term rental (vacation)
65%Primary residence (for owner)
40%Other*
Source: “The ABCs of ADUs,” AARP
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 17
Framework of Implementation
● Zoning & Approvals—Allowing ADUs is an essential step in
the implementation of this strategy. While some cities allow
detached and attached ADUs, others allow only attached ac-
cessory units or forbid them entirely, particularly in sin-
gle-family zones.
Most ADUs are built by homeowners who are typically un-
familiar with the development process, so navigating the
permitting and building process can be a barrier. The ap-
proval of ADUs can be difficult, with parking, infrastructure,
and neighborhood character some of the more noted con-
cerns. Regulations on parking, lot size, and setbacks, as well
as impact fees, often increase the costs, making ADU con-
struction financially unfeasible at times.
Often homeowners aren’t aware of ADU opportunities,
and cities around the country are beginning to promote and
market their ADU programs. Educating residents about the
approval process and design challenges facilitates bringing
more ADUs to the market. For example, the city of Hillsbor-
ough, California, formed a 22-person advisory committee to
identify neighborhoods where ADUs would be a good fit.
The committee also provided input on design elements and
overall neighborhood fit. By doing this, the city was able to
get greater acceptance of ADU zoning upgrades, which can
often be the biggest obstacle to overcome. Another California
city, Santa Cruz, provides several tools to encourage ADU con-
struction. These include ADU manuals, architectural proto-
types, a loan fund, fee waivers, and community workshops.
● Financing—ADUs are an investment, and like any invest-
ment, the numbers have to be appealing. Currently, there
are limited financial tools for existing homeowners to use to
build accessory units. Existing financing vehicles include
personal savings, a cash-out refinance, a home equity loan,
and renovation financing. A recent study out of Oregon
found that the majority of homeowners who built an ADU
financed it through personal cash savings. Traditional home
builders may not see a big enough profit margin to add an
ADU to new single-family construction projects. Many
homeowners already have a mortgage on their existing
property, therefore borrowing against it may be limited de-
pending on their loan-to-value ratio.
The debt-to-income ratio of the homeowner may be im-
proved by rental revenue generated by the ADU. Since lend-
ers assess individuals’ debt-to-income ratio, the potential
rental income from an ADU may allow borrowers to obtain a
larger loan and reduce out-of-pocket costs.
Another financial constraint is municipal fees. ADUs’ im-
pact on municipal infrastructure and services is different
from those created by traditional development, such as sin-
gle-family homes or multifamily units. Often, cities charge
the same fees for ADUs as for larger projects. Proportional
municipal fees are vital in keeping ADUs affordable.
Some cities across the United States are developing
low-interest or forgivable loan programs for ADUs. For ex-
ample, Santa Cruz offers 20-year loans up to $40,000 with
interest-only payment. At the end of the 20-year term the
principal can be forgiven if the ADU has been rented at spec-
ified affordable guidelines.
Examples of Best Practice
● The Alley Flat Initiative—The Alley Flat Initiative is a nonprofit
created in 2005 by the University of Texas School of Archi-
tecture and Austin Community Design and Development
Center, in Austin, Texas. The goal of the initiative is to pro-
vide planning and design of ADUs that specifically target
affordable housing. The nonprofit works with homeowners
and guides them through the construction and financing,
with the goal of providing an affordable rental unit to low-
and moderate-income households.
● State of California Reforms—In 2016 and 2017, California
passed ADU reforms that require cities to permit one ADU per
single-family home, streamlined ADU permitting, set utility
fees proportional to the burden of ADUs, and further reduced
fees for ADUs built inside an existing home. The law also
waived parking requirements for ADUs located within a half-
mile of a transit stop or within a block of a car-share stop. Oth-
er reforms addressed structure setbacks and floor space. As a
result of these reforms, ADU applications increased, especially
in Los Angeles. Before these reforms, the city was permitting
100 to 200 ADUs per year. After the reforms, permits increased
to 2,326 in 2017 and nearly doubled to 4,171 in 2018, ac-
counting for 20% of all new housing permits for the year.
● Portland, Oregon Reforms—The city of Portland added almost
2,000 units between 2010 and 2016. Portland began reform-
ing housing regulations to encourage more ADUs in 1997,
when it revised minimum square footage and owner-occu-
pancy requirements. By 2004, citywide garage conversions
were permitted with no on-site parking requirements, and
the code relaxed design standards. In 2010, the System Devel-
opment Charges were waived, leading to a spike in permits;
and in 2014, short-term-rentals were permitted. By 2015, de -
sign and setback standards had been further relaxed, leading
2016 to be a record year for ADU permitting in the city.
In Portland, ADU construction costs range from a few
thousand dollars to nearly $300,000, averaging approxi-
mately $150,000. One intervention that stood out for Port-
land was the fee waiver, which allowed the construction of
more affordable ADUs. As a result of these combined policy
changes, ADU permits are issued at about the same rate as
single-family permits.
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM18
ADUs in Utah
Utah cities are revising their affordable housing strategies to
use ADUs as one tool to address rising housing costs. A survey
completed by the Salt Lake County Department of Regional
Development in early 2018 found that 58 out of the 92 cities
surveyed allow some type of ADU in one of its zones, and 40 of
the cities allow for a detached structure. Among the cities that
allow ADUs, a little over 50% permit long-term rentals of ADUs, as
shown in Figure IV.2. Sixty-five percent of cities allowing ADUs
require that the owner live in either the main or accessory unit.
Additional findings from the survey show that a little over
half of the cities that approve of ADUs allow them to be built
across 75% or more of residential zones. Unfortunately, an
estimate of the total number of ADUs legally allowed in cities
does not exist. Many cities have not tallied their ADUs. But half
the cities acknowledged they have illegal ADUs in their
jurisdictions. Census data provide an estimate of the number of
attached rental units in single-family homes, primarily
basement apartments. Some of these units may be legal ADUs,
but a large share are likely illegal. Attached rental units of single-
family homes total 8.3% of the rental inventory of cities with
more than 20,000 population, a total of 19,428 units.
Note: Respondents were allowed to select multiple answers, therefore the sum exceeds 100%.
*Includes limitations of occupancy where rent can’t be charged or only family members can
occupy unit.
Source: Salt Lake County Planning Division, Survey of Utah Cities.
Table IV.1: Share of Attached Renter-Occupied Units in
Single-Unit Structures for Cities with 20,000 or More
Residents in Utah, 2014–2018
City
Total Renter
Units
1-Unit
Attached
% of Total
Renter Units
Provo 19,913 2,041 10.2%
Orem 11,395 1,514 13.3%
Salt Lake City 40,360 1,500 3.7%
St. George 10,147 1,256 12.4%
Logan 10,356 1,152 11.1%
West Valley City 11,734 1,115 9.5%
West Jordan 8,519 841 9.9%
Cedar City 4,836 811 16.8%
Ogden 13,297 686 5.2%
Clearfield 3,998 653 16.3%
Millcreek 9,626 606 6.3%
Midvale 7,033 520 7.4%
Draper 2,705 517 19.1%
Springville 2,805 451 16.1%
Sandy 6,752 420 6.2%
Lehi 3,026 412 13.6%
Spanish Fork 2,388 398 16.7%
Cottonwood Heights 3,522 348 9.9%
South Jordan 3,888 330 8.5%
Taylorsville 6,173 326 5.3%
South Salt Lake 5,424 322 5.9%
Washington 2,586 316 12.2%
Murray 6,423 313 4.9%
Pleasant Grove 3,653 304 8.3%
Holladay 2,574 303 11.8%
Herriman 1,410 223 15.8%
American Fork 1,857 220 11.8%
Magna 2,032 192 9.4%
Bountiful 3,769 185 4.9%
Layton 6,700 176 2.6%
Tooele 2,243 173 7.7%
Riverton 1,233 142 11.5%
Saratoga Springs 1,245 119 9.6%
North Salt Lake 1,745 79 4.5%
Eagle Mountain 930 78 8.4%
Farmington 1,183 74 6.3%
Kaysville 1,022 73 7.1%
North Ogden 907 58 6.4%
Syracuse 525 52 9.9%
Roy 2,132 50 2.3%
Kearns 1,909 43 2.3%
Clinton 957 36 3.8%
Total 234,932 19,428 8.3%
Source: US Census Bureau, 2014–2018 American Community Survey
Figure IV.2: Permitted ADU Occupancy in Cities that
Allow ADUs
02004006008001,0001,200
19
8
7
19
8
9
19
9
1
19
9
3
19
9
5
19
9
7
19
9
9
20
0
1
20
0
3
20
0
5
20
0
7
20
0
9
20
1
1
20
1
3
20
1
5
20
1
7
1987198919911993199519971999200120032005200720092011201320152017UnitsAnnual Avg. 229 units 11,87215,11805,00010,00015,00020,00025,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Permitted Units Single-family Multifamily
9.3%
10.7%
10.9%
11.7%
16.8%
17.7%
18.7%
19.0%
19.1%
19.2%
19.3%
19.5%
22.3%
23.0%
23.6%
25.3%
26.0%
26.1%
26.5%
27.5%
28.2%
28.3%
29.3%
31.2%
31.4%
31.4%
31.5%
32.6%
32.6%
32.8%
33.4%
33.5%
33.9%
34.2%
34.5%
34.5%
34.7%
35.2%
35.8%
36.7%
38.2%
39.2%
40.4%
41.5%
46.2%
47.1%
48.3%
49.1%
53.0%55.7%59.1%69.6%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%
North Dakota
Alaska
Connecticut
West Virgina
Louisiana
Illinois
Mississippi
Wyoming
New Jersey
Maryland
Oklahoma
Delaware
Iowa
Arkansas
Vermont
Virginia
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
New York
South Dakota
Kansas
Kentucky
Alabama
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Nebraska
Massachusetts
Ohio
Wisconsin
Montana
US
Missouri
Rhode Island
Minnesota
Texas
Indiana
Maine
South Carolina
DC
California
North Carolina
Michigan
Tennessee
Georgia
Arizona
Oregon
Florida
Colorado
UtahNevadaWashingtonIdaho
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Units Annual avg. 229 units
Detached Attached
Garage ConversionAbove Garage
Interior (upper level)
Interior (lower level)
54%Long-term rental (rental)
19%Short-term rental (vacation)
65%Primary residence (for owner)
40%Other*
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 19
Background
Transit-oriented developments (TODs) are compact, mixed-
use developments anchored around transit hubs and walkable
communities. Zoning for high-density housing often comes
with the establishment of a TOD. TOD housing has the additional
advantage of reducing transportation costs and increasing
access to jobs, education, essential goods, and local services.
The establishment of a TOD requires multiple agency
coordination and regional planning. These entities can include
municipalities, counties, regional planners, associations of
governments, transit and transportation authorities, and
private developers. Funding for a TOD comes from a variety of
national, state, and local sources.
The development of a TOD generally increases the value of
the surrounding land. Higher land costs require collaborative
efforts by cities, developers, and nonprofits to provide financial
incentives to housing developers, particularly developers of
affordable housing.
Why Transit-Oriented Developments Are a Best Practice
● Provide Infill Development—Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
manages 72 rail transit stations along the Wasatch Front and
owns 442 acres of property within half a mile of 36 of those
stations; 14 of these are commuter rail stations, and 22 are
light rail stations. A majority of the UTA-owned property is
currently used as surface parking, bus loops, drop-off areas,
and other uses. The average amount of contiguous property
within these 36 station areas is 12.55 acres. Much of this prop-
erty could be consolidated and incorporated into more active
developments. Through cooperation with the landowners of
other surrounding properties and municipal leadership,
much of this area is available for future TOD development.
● Provide the Opportunity for Increased High-Density Housing
and Reduced Transportations Costs—UTA completed the first
TRAX line (Salt Lake City to Sandy) in 1999. Since then addi-
tional TRAX lines have been completed, along with FrontRun-
ner and the S-line (streetcar). With this transit development
has come a number of transit stations. About 20 of these tran-
sit stations have become TODs with mixed-use developments.
These TODs have spurred construction of several thousand
housing units. Without the transit hub most of these housing
units would not have been built or built in locations far from
rail transit. At present, about 35% of all market-rate apartment
units in the cities and towns in Salt Lake County, nearly 30,000
units, are within walking distance (half a mile) of a rail (TRAX
or FrontRunner) station (see Table V.1). And 45% of all Low-In-
come Housing Tax Credit units, 5,100 units, are within walking
distance of a rail station (see Table V.2).
V. Transit-Oriented Development and Housing Affordability
Table V.1: Market Rate Apartments Near UTA Rail Stations
in Cities and Towns in Salt Lake County, 2018*
City Within One-Half Mile Total Units
Bingham Canyon 0 15
Bluffdale 0 311
Cottonwood Heights 0 646
Draper 1,373 3,637
Herriman 0 2,496
Holladay 0 354
Kearns 0 24
Magna 0 703
Midvale 1,863 5,009
Millcreek 0 20
Murray 921 2,569
Riverton 0 517
Salt Lake City 21,060 45,455
Sandy 1,032 4,723
South Jordan 817 2,807
South Salt Lake 377 646
Taylorsville 0 1,968
West Jordan 876 5,747
West Valley City 492 3,626
Total 28,811 81,273
*Does not include unincorporated Salt Lake County.
Source: CoStar
Table V.2: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Units Near UTA
Rail Stations in Cities and Towns in Salt Lake County, 2017*
City Within One-Half Mile Total Units
Bluffdale 0 336
Draper 0 113
Herriman 0 258
Kearns 0 9
Magna 0 164
Midvale 446 725
Murray 624 837
Salt Lake City 3,607 5,747
Sandy 192 486
South Salt Lake 96 166
Taylorsville 0 331
West Jordan 0 825
West Valley City 138 1,247
Total 5,103 11,244
*Does not include unincorporated Salt Lake County.
Source: Utah Housing Corporation
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM20
● Utilize Existing Transportation Infrastructure—Utilizing the ex-
isting infrastructure, municipalities and regional authorities
can focus TOD growth around existing transit hubs, minimiz-
ing the need for significant new transportation infrastructure.
● Access Multiple, Well-Established Funding Sources—Financing
for TODs comes from a variety of public and private sources,
including federal grant funds from the Federal Transit Ad-
ministration. Many regions, including Atlanta and Denver,
have partnered with municipalities, financial institutions,
state and federal government, and nonprofits to create
TOD-specific funds.
In Utah, the Utah Equitable TOD Loan Fund will have an
initial two-year origination period and a total term of five
years, with the intent of renewing these terms annually. The
fund is made possible by the support of $5 million from the
State of Utah Division of Housing and Community Develop-
ment and $2 million from Salt Lake County. Envision Utah,
Morgan Stanley, Synchrony Financial, Zions Bank, the Utah
Center for Affordable Housing, and other partners have also
made this fund possible.
● Revitalize Neighborhoods/Create a Sense of Space—The pro-
motion of TOD on urban infill parcels can create opportuni-
ties to revitalize older communities and neighborhoods.
Mixed-use developments at TODs can also serve as an es-
sential tool in achieving broader community strategies. TOD
neighborhoods provide gathering places, open spaces, and
community resources that may not otherwise be available
to the community.
● Satisfy S.B. 34—TODs are included in S.B. 34’s strategies: “(G)
encourage higher density or moderate-income residential
development near major transit investment corridors.”
Framework for Implementation
● Multiple Stakeholder Coordination—Municipal leadership,
regional authorities, transportation agencies, private devel-
opers, and other community stakeholders coordinate efforts
to bring affordable housing to TODs. Inclusion of low- to
very low-income housing in TODs is rare and generally re-
quires the development of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
projects. Private-public partnership can facilitate affordable
housing with land write-downs, tax increment financing,
and federal assistance.
● Accommodative Zoning—TOD zoning, in a number of cities,
has facilitated the development of high-density housing.
Some of the most successful are American Fork, Sandy, Mid-
vale, Millcreek, Salt Lake City, Farmington, and Ogden. These
cities are a ready resource in the implementation and devel-
opment of TOD housing.
Examples of Best Practice
● American Fork—In 2018, American Fork lifted a moratorium
on new development in its TOD zone surrounding the Amer-
ican Fork FrontRunner station. With the repeal and replace -
ment of Section 17.4.608 of the American Fork City Develop-
ment Code, the city council issued revised design guidelines
for the TOD section of its municipal code. American Fork’s
plans allow for housing development that ranges from
high-intensity urban designs to low-intensity designs, in-
cluding single-family homes. The city plans to incorporate
affordable housing opportunities and create housing com-
munities that accommodate a variety of economic and de -
mographic segments. Currently, two notable residential
projects are in the review process: the Castlewood Apart-
ments located at 900 West 200 South, and the Edgewater
TOD residential development at 1150 West 200 South.
● Farmington—Station Park opened in 2011 and has been a
commercial anchor of transit-oriented development in
Farmington. Farmington City has adopted a mixed-use dis-
trict development plan that encourages a compatible mix of
uses. By allowing for flexibility in design, the plan promotes
a transit- and pedestrian-oriented pattern of development
that is consistent with the objectives of the Farmington City
General Plan. Specifically, the Transit Mixed Use District
(TMU) is intended to develop retail and mixed-use projects
in a manner that promotes walkability and enhances the de -
sirability of transit use. The TMU allows for higher-intensity
development as long as it doesn’t impair walkability or tran-
sit use and helps create a viable TOD that transitions smooth-
ly into the surrounding communities.
● Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund—Led by the Of-
fice of Economic Development (OED), Denver established a
TOD fund to provide a new financing mechanism allowing
for the acquisition and preservation of affordable housing
along existing and new transit corridors. The TOD fund
brought funds from the City of Denver, the MacArthur Foun-
dation, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Colorado Housing and Fi-
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 21
nance Authority, Rose Community Foundation, and the Mile
High Community Loan Fund, among others. OED also lever-
aged other federal funds, including the Neighborhood Sta-
bilization Program, to maximize the fund’s impact. The Ur-
ban Land Conservancy, a local nonprofit, acts as the fund’s
sole borrower and oversees land purchases to target three
types of properties in TOD areas: existing federally assisted
rental properties, existing unsubsidized but below-mar-
ket-rate rental properties, and vacant or commercial proper-
ties to be converted to new affordable housing. Since its in-
ception, 17 loans have been made through the Denver
Regional TOD Fund, providing a total of $34 million in financ-
ing for property acquisitions near public transit in the Denver
metro area. As a result, more than 1,450 affordable homes
near public transportation have been created or preserved.
Variations on a Theme
● Land Value Capture—Potential value capture tools include
special assessments and taxes, tax increment financing,
varying forms of developer contributions, and joint devel-
opment or other public sector real estate transactions. These
tools are used to help offset the significant upfront invest-
ment needed to develop TODs, including public infrastruc-
ture, connectivity improvements, affordable housing, and
other community features, including parks and open space.
Value capture tools work best in areas where there is a ro-
bust real estate market, significant development potential,
strong political and community support, one (or few) juris-
dictions involved, and a strong municipal fiscal position.
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM22
To identify “best practices” the Gardner Policy Institute
conducted a survey of 35 practitioners. The survey included a
list of 16 potential practices gleaned from a literature search.
The survey asked the practitioner to identify practices that in
their experience were most effective in addressing the issue of
housing affordability. Thirty of the 35 practitioners responded.
The selection of best practices for this study was confirmed by
the results of the survey. See below for the survey and the list of
practitioners.
Table VI.1: Respondents to Best Practices Survey
Practitioner/
Respondent Organization
Ackerow, Mike Executive Director, Community Development
Corporation of Utah
Bishop, Brad Executive Director, Self-Help Homes
Brereton, John Consultant to Utah Private Activity Bond Authority
Corroon, Peter Former mayor of Salt Lake County, developer of
affordable housing
Dahl, Matt Redevelopment Agency Director, Midvale City
Datwyler, Kim Former Executive Director, Neighborhood Housing
Solutions
Diehl, Cameron Executive Director of Utah League of Cities and
Towns
Erickson, Steve Housing advocate
Funk, Tim Director of Community Housing Assistance Programs,
Crossroads Urban Center
Gallegos, Mike Director of Housing and Community Development,
Salt Lake County
Garciaz, Maria CEO, NeighborWorks Salt Lake
Goff, Lani Director, Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood
Development
Gray, Lilly National Development Council Greater Salt Lake Area
Jepperson, Randy Housing Program Manager, Salt Lake County
Jones, Jeff Economic Development and Housing Director,
Summit County
Kimball, Janice CEO, Housing Connect (formerly the Housing
Authority of the County of Salt Lake)
Lofgren, Dan President and CEO, Cowboy Partners
Loomis, Scott Executive Director, Mountainlands Community
Housing Trust
Milligan, Marci Development Consultant, Utah Nonprofit Housing
Corporation
Nelson, Chris Professor of Planning & Real Estate Development,
University of Arizona
Parker, Chris Executive Director, GIV Group
Price, Tim Executive Director, Ogden City Housing Authority
Rollins, Tara Executive Director, Utah Housing Coalition
Royall, Heather West Valley City Grants Division
Schulte, Jim President, Restore Utah
Smith, Lynell CEO, Housing Authority of Utah County
Springmeyer, Bob Bonneville Research
Stauffer, Rhoda Director, Park City Affordable Housing Program
Tippits, Bill Associate Director, Crossroads Urban Center
Weaver, Michele Rural Community Assistance Corporation
VI. Survey of Best Practices
Best Practices Survey
The Gardner Policy Institute is engaged in a study of
“best practices” used by Utah’s cities and counties to
improve housing affordability and increase the supply of
affordable housing. I’ve conducted a literature search to
identify some best practices used in other states; see
below. I need help in identifying the practices that have
been most effective in Utah. I’d appreciate it if you’d take a
few minutes and identify, from your experience, a couple
practices that you feel have been most effective. Please
return your comments by email. Any specific examples of
implementation, outcomes, and jurisdictions with best
practices would be very helpful.
List of some possible best practices
Accessory Dwelling Units
Use of RDAs, CRAs, tax increment financing
TODs as source of housing development
Preservation and rehabilitation of existing
affordable housing
Density bonuses
Up-zoning and land use regulations
Inclusionary zoning
Development incentives for city (S.B. 34)
Repurposing of underutilized commercial space
Streamlining approval process
Reduced fees for affordable housing
Land trust
Housing trust fund Olene Walker, Pamela Atkinson
Homeless
Tax or fee rebates
Use of innovative materials to reduce cost
Rental assistance/down payment assistance
Other practices you are familiar with
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 23
VII. Examples of Best Practices Outside of Utah
A. Public Asset Management and Housing Affordability
B. Up-Zoning and Housing Affordability
C. Adaptive Reuse
D. Housing Trust Funds and Housing Affordability
E. State Leadership
A. Public Asset Management and
Housing Affordability
Public entities such as states, cities, counties, school districts,
utilities, transportation agencies, special districts, etc., own
billions of dollars in real estate assets. However, these assets are
not utilized to their full potential. This creates an opportunity to
develop new streams of revenue for public entities by
optimizing the uses of these assets in partnership. Rather than
disposing of surplus land or an underutilized real estate asset,
the public entity enters into a partnership with a private or state
public entity to maximize the asset’s market potential. This
improves the value of the asset and generates new revenue.
A critical piece for managing public assets is identifying
commercially valuable assets versus those public assets that
should remain as public goods. The concept of using public
assets to generate revenue isn’t new, but it is not often utilized.
The most successful utilization of this strategy comes from
Denmark, while a few US cities are beginning this process as are
several tech and philanthropic institutions.
How It Works
Many public institutions don’t know the true market value of
their assets. A critical step to public asset management is a
comprehensive inventory and value assessment. Often, an
independent public entity is established to manage the assets.
The assets are transferred from the local government to the
entity. This allows for transparency and objective valuation,
while insulating the project from political interference.
The assets can also be merged or bundled. For example, a
school district and a city can form an entity to execute a project
plan. In most cases, public ownership is fragmented across
different entities. Combining assets under a single entity eases
entitlement and financial lending obstacles. It is likely that the
project will require a land-use rezone. This step alone can
increase the project value without significant financial
investment.
This new entity can borrow (generally with favorable terms)
by using the improved land value as collateral. The asset can
also be applied as a capital contribution for a public-private
partnership, or leased to a private entity.
The public entity can then use the profits from the
development to invest in other public infrastructure projects
such as transportation, education, and other public amenities.
This, in theory, increases the value of remaining land and assets,
further enabling the entity to invest and expand.
Example of Strategy
CPH City & Port Development Corporation—Copenhagen,
Denmark
As the city of Copenhagen, Denmark, was facing major
budgetary and economic woes in the early 1990s, local and
national government entities formed a public-private
corporation to redevelop a part of the city. The goal was to
revitalize a part of the city and finance large-scale infrastructure
by increasing revenue from publicly owned land and buildings
without raising taxes.
Upon forming the development corporation, strategic parcels
of land were identified then rezoned to reflect favorable market
conditions. This step immediately increased the value of the
land. The process followed with a favorable loan against the
rezoned property from the Denmark National Bank. The capital
was used to expand the transit system and pay for additional
local infrastructure. As the project expanded, revenue was
raised from land sales and lease agreements, which was used to
service the original debt.
VI. Survey of Best Practices
National and local government transfer asets to CPH City & Port
Development
Local government rezones the land for residential and
commercial use
The land increases in value
CPH City & Port Development borrows (generally with loans
on favorable items the the Denmark National Bank) based on
the (increased) value of the land
The capital is either transferred to the metro construction
company for broader transit investments and/or used by CPH City &
Port Development to pay for local infrastructure that enables
the development of the land
CPH City & Port Development facilitates development through a
variety of mechanisms, including land sales to increase agreements
with developers and, in a limited number of cases, development by
the corporation itself
This generates revenue that is used to service debt
Figure A.1: Copenhagen Mechanism for CPH City &
Port Development
Source: Brookings Institute
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM24
Applications to Utah
Utah’s public entities are uniquely positioned to utilize the
public asset, public-private partnership model. There are
numerous public universities, utilities, and even health care
providers that could provide a wide range of public benefits
such as affordable housing or health care services.
This could involve making land available for critical public
needs such as providing affordable housing, addressing food
deserts, increasing education and job training, and expanding
green or open space. Public asset management could also
involve commercial endeavors, generating returns that flow
back into government budgets to be invested in transportation,
infrastructure, public housing, behavioral health care, public
education, or other government services.
B. Up-Zoning and Housing Affordability
Background
Up-zoning is defined as land use change that allows for higher
development intensity. During the 1970s cities rezoned land to
increase restrictiveness of land use intensity, such as housing.
Today, the opposite philosophy is applied to up-zoning. Cities
use the policy to increase housing density and provide options
for affordable housing. As housing affordability continues to be a
burden, policy makers are using up-zoning as one of the solutions
to decrease displacement as well as provide new opportunities
to lower-income residents in amenity-rich areas.
Examples of Up-Zoning
Minneapolis, Minnesota—Over the last three years the city
worked on the Minneapolis 2040 plan, which includes strategies
aimed at addressing climate change, density, and affordable
housing. The plan went into effect at the beginning of 2020 and
included at least two drafts and over 100 amendments.
The major affordable housing intervention includes a two-
strategy approach. First, the plan allocates $25 million in
subsidies to a housing fund and requires that 10% of apartment
units must be reserved for moderate-income households.
Second, the plan effectively up-zones the whole city to allow
denser development with more units to be built in areas that
previously contained only single-family homes.
The plan also focuses on providing higher density near transit
stops and eliminating off-street minimum parking requirements
to free up land for denser multifamily development.
State of Oregon—Because Oregon has defined urban growth
boundaries, metropolitan and state regulatory authorities
regularly assess whether cities are meeting their population
needs to accommodate 20 years of growth.
In 2019 the Oregon State Legislature passed H.B. 2001,
allowing for increased housing density in residential areas
where only single-family building was previously approved,
thus up-zoning the whole state. The policy eliminates any local
bans on duplexes in low-density residential areas that have
more than 10,000 residents. In cities with more than 25,000
residents, the policy allows triplexes, fourplexes, and attached
townhomes. The bill gives cities the ability to regulate design
characteristics and size, and allows for flexibility to incentivize
projects that create new, below-market units.
Seattle, Washington—The city established a Mandatory
Housing Affordability (MHA) policy with new zoning guidelines
ensuring that new commercial and multifamily residential
developments provide affordable housing units. This policy
change is expected to produce over 6,000 low-income units
over the next decade.
There are five zones throughout the city requiring different
levels of development density, ranging from low-rise detached
and row house neighborhoods to taller mixed-use districts,
where buildings will be allowed to rise to a height of 95 feet or
more. Approximately 6% of Seattle’s single-family zones will be
up zoned.
For builders, there are options to opt out of these regulations;
however, required fees in lieu of on-site affordable housing
construction start at $5.58 per square foot for developments
located in low-rise areas outside downtown and increase to a
maximum of $35.75 per square foot for larger mixed-use
developments.
C. Housing Affordability and Adaptive
Reuse of Commercial for Residential
Background
Adaptive reuse or repurposing of office, industrial, and retail
properties for residential use is not a new idea. It has been a
redevelopment staple in major metropolitan areas like New
York City and San Francisco for years. Salt Lake City has several
examples of adaptive reuse in the Central Business District
(CBD). The 2002 Olympics spurred the adaptive reuse of aging
warehouses to residential use, including the Dakota Lofts,
Artspace, Broadway Lofts, and Pierpont Lofts. The city has
adopted a D-3 Downtown zone that allows for the adaptive
reuse or replacement of warehouse space with mixed-use,
multifamily spaces. Repurposing commercial space to
residential in Utah has been limited to Salt Lake City’s CBD. But
the recent closures of big box locations by Shopko, Kmart,
Sears, J.C. Penney, and Toys-R-Us provides adaptive reuse
opportunities for suburban and even some rural communities.
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 25
In the past two years Shopko has closed 19 locations in Utah. A
review of commercial listings shows Shopko properties for sale
in four cities: Ogden, Nephi, Roosevelt, and Brigham City.
The continued growth of online shopping, along with the
impact of COVID-19, will likely open up more opportunities to
convert retail space to residential uses. But the conversion can
be difficult. A different use will require a zoning change. The
best prospects for conversion are freestanding buildings that
require demolition, which can cost as much as $500,000. There
can be local tax issues. Additionally, there could be many
interested parties in the “dark space.” Amazon, At Home, and
Dick’s Sporting Goods have all expressed interest in former
Sears and Kmart locations. Despite these complications,
collaborative efforts by cities and developers have created
additional housing through adaptive reuse in markets facing
housing shortages.
Examples of Adaptive Reuse—In Burbank, California, the
relocation of an IKEA store left an abandoned site that was
developed into a mixed-use location with several hundred
housing units. A 94-unit apartment complex in Westport,
Connecticut, was developed after demolition of an abandoned
office building. The Howard Hughes Corp., landlord of a
shuttered mall in Alexandria, Virginia, donated a Macy’s store to
temporarily house the homeless. Converted office space in
downtown Dallas provided over 500 new rental units. Numerous
examples of commercial-to-residential conversion can be found
through a web search. Crucial to all conversions is the receptivity
of the local planning commission and city council to a change
in land use.
D. Housing Trust Funds and Affordable
Housing
Background
Funding is one of the many challenges facing affordable
housing projects in Utah. One way to address funding
challenges is through housing trust funds (HTFs). These state
and local funds secure ongoing dedicated public funds for
affordable housing needs. Common revenue sources for HTFs
include developer fees, penalties on late payments of real estate
taxes, a dedicated portion of the local real estate transfer tax, and
fees from other real estate–related transactions. Most often, HTFs
address affordable housing needs by providing financing for
affordable housing construction and preservation through
techniques like zero-interest loans or gap financing. Other tactics
may include demand-side solutions such as subsidizing down
payments for low- to moderate-income households.
The National Housing Trust Fund, created in 2008,
complements existing local efforts to preserve and produce
affordable housing. The program provides block grants to states
to increase or preserve the supply of rental housing affordable
to extremely low-income households (30% of the area median
income or less, or below the federal poverty guideline). The
national HTF requires 90% of awarded funds to be used for
rental housing. The first awards of the national HTF began in
2016, with Utah awarded funds for three projects for a total of
39 units.
Housing Trust Funds in Utah
The Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (OWHLF) is Utah’s state
housing trust fund. The fund supports quality affordable
housing options to meet the needs of Utah’s individuals and
families, with a focus on developing housing for very low-
income, low-income, and moderate-income persons. The
program is administered by the Utah Housing and Community
Development Division. It combines federal HOME funding,
USDA rural development funding, annual appropriations from
the state legislature, and, recently, program income and loan
repayments. For the 2018–2019 program year, the OWHLF had
933 current loans, a $146.4 million total portfolio value, and
assisted 1,217 units for a lifetime total of 20,703 units funded.
Salt Lake City also has a housing trust fund, and while it acts
similar to a traditional HTF, it is not subject to the same rules
and regulations from HUD. This fund provides loans to housing
sponsors and developers to support affordable and special
needs housing within the city. It is funded through the general
fund of the city and functions as a revolving loan fund that
accepts applications year-round and requires detailed
descriptions of the project and how it will assist with the city’s
affordable and special needs housing. Since 2009, 2,330
affordable units in 29 developments have been assisted by Salt
Lake City’s HTF. From July 2018 to June 2019, 65 new units and
95 rehabilitated units in three developments were completed.
As of March 2020, 11 developments, including two rehabilitation
projects, were in the development process and 10 projects in
the pipeline for HTF funding. Currently, the city’s Housing and
Neighborhood Development department is working with the
RDA under the direction of the city council to streamline the
funding process for multifamily developments.
Housing Trust Funds in Other Regions
Nationally, there are over 800 state and local HTFs generating
more than $2.5 billion a year to support critical housing needs.
These funds are a result of state and local action led by
community organizers, housing advocates, elected officials,
November 2020 I gardner.utah.edu INFORMED DECISIONSTM26
and other allies who have agreed that the development of a
permanent stream of revenues dedicated to affordable housing
is a public priority. For HTFs to be effective on a local level, there
needs to be persistent advocacy, ongoing revenue support,
and administrative direction.
In King County, Washington, the county collaborated with
cities to create a regional HTF, A Regional Coalition for Housing
(ARCH), to address the affordability crisis driven by robust
economic growth in the region. Each jurisdiction contributes
funds to the HTF, and all members receive an equitable
distribution of ARCH resources. Additional revenue sources
include general funds, federal Community Development Block
Grant funds, payments by developers, loan repayments, earned
interest, fee waivers, infrastructure improvements, and
contributions of land. Since 1993, the ARCH HTF has funded
over 3,250 units of housing for families, seniors, and persons
with special needs.
The Sadowski Fund operates as an HTF in Florida and is
administered by the Sadowski Coalition. The coalition of 32
statewide organizations began in 1991 to obtain a dedicated
revenue source to fund the state’s affordable housing programs.
Initially, Florida’s housing programs were funded when the
“document stamp tax” paid on all real estate transactions was
increased in 1992. All monies generated were dedicated to
state and local housing trust funds.
E. State Leadership and Housing Affordability
Local opposition often impedes progress on Utah’s housing
shortage. Any housing development that requires a special
permit or variance will likely trigger a public meeting. Public
meetings have their virtues. They allow those who are most
affected to voice their views and can act as a check on developer
excesses. But they can also allow a small group of
unrepresentative neighbors to amplify opposition to new
developments. In addition to being relatively few in number,
the opponents may not be representative demographically or
socioeconomically of the jurisdiction. Their interests may not
reflect the larger community’s interests and housing needs.
A large share of those who would benefit from a new
development almost always live outside the jurisdiction. Their
voices in support of additional housing go unheard. This
imbalance between staunch opposition and widely diffused
support underscores the need for the state to step in and
balance the scales. Local governments are often limited in their
ability to make meaningful progress on the challenges of
affordability. State support can help. An example, in 2019 the
Utah Legislature passed S.B. 34, the most consequential
affordable housing legislation to date. S.B. 34 incentivizes
affordable housing development by tying state transportation
funding to strategies aimed at encouraging affordable housing.
State leadership, as a best practice, is exemplified by Oregon
and California. In 2019 the Oregon Legislature passed H.B. 2001
that eliminates single-family zoning in much of the state. “Under
the new bill, cities of more than 1,000 in the Portland metropolitan
area and those of more than 25,000 in the rest of the state will
have to allow up to fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods.
Cities between 10,000 and 25,000 would have to at least allow
duplexes.”13 Oregon will be a test case for other cities and states
contemplating eliminating the single-family zone.
In 2016 and 2017, California passed accessory dwelling unit
reforms that require cities to permit one ADU per single-family
home, streamline ADU permitting, set utility fees proportional
to the burden of ADUs, and further reduce fees for ADUs built
inside an existing home. The law also waived parking
requirements for ADUs located within half a mile of a transit
stop or within a block of a car-share stop. After passage of the
ADU legislation, the annual number of ADU units receiving
building permits in Los Angeles increased from a few hundred
to almost 4,200 in 2018.
Progress on the housing crisis needs continued state and
civic leadership. Without it, today’s children, Utah’s next
generation, will face an even greater scarcity of affordable
housing and more burdensome housing prices.
gardner.utah.edu I November 2020INFORMED DECISIONSTM 27
Other Local Studies on Housing Affordability
Utah League of Cities and Towns
In 2018, the Utah League of Cities and Towns published Keys
to Housing Policy in Utah. The first section of this report is
devoted to housing terminology: common housing terms, land
use terms, and financial terms. The second section includes
brief descriptions of 15 strategies followed by four case studies
briefly describing the implementation of a strategy: Clearfield
(form-based code for downtown housing), Park City (workforce
deed-restricted housing), South Salt Lake (TOD/Community
Redevelopment Area), and Ogden (Community Reinvestment
Area and zoning code updates).
https://site.utah.gov/ulct/wp-content/uploads/
sites/4/2018/06/Keys-to-Housing-Report.pdf
In November 2019 the Utah League of Cities and Towns
published One Key to Housing, Accessory Dwelling Units: A Resource
Guide for Municipal Officials and Staff. This is a how-to publication
for municipalities considering adopting an ADU ordinance.
http://www.ulct.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/08/
One-Key-ADUs_Updated-8.13.2019.pdf
University of Utah, Department of City & Metropolitan
Planning
Graduate students have produced a 50-page draft report
titled Affordable Housing Strategies: State-of-the-Practice in Ten
Utah Cities. The study identifies 15 housing strategies and then
examines the use of those strategies in 10 major cities in Utah.
The report was produced and published under the direction of
Professor Reid Ewing.
Utah Foundation
This study will address the issue of housing affordability and
the “missing middle.” In this report, missing middle is defined as
those households who earn too much to qualify for subsidized
housing but not enough to cover the costs of market-rate
housing. This study will examine the scope of the problem,
identify geographic problem areas where the issue is most
acute, and analyze the pros and cons of various strategies that
could help alleviate it. Particular emphasis will be placed on
exploring homeownership options.
Endnotes
1. Utah Code Ann., 10-9a-5.
2. Salt Lake County Municipal Code, Chapter 19.02.020.
3. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Demographics, and Ivory-Boyer Construction Database.
4. “Cities Start to Question an American Ideal: A House with a Yard on Every Lot,” New York Times, June 18, 2019.
5. Housing America’s Older Adults 2019, Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.
6. “One Home, a Lifetime of Impact,” Washington Post, July 23, 2020.
7. Utah Code Ann., 10-9a-403.
8. Utah Code Ann., 17C-1-412.
9. Original Redevelopment Agency legislation used the nomenclature of RDA. In 2006, legislation created Urban Renewal Areas (URA), Community Development
Areas (CDA) and Economic Development Areas (EDA). In 2016 Legislation collapse URA, CDA, and EDA into a single designation of Community Reinvestment
Area (CRA). Project areas retain the nomenclature used at the time of their creation.
10. The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, 2019 Annual Report.
11. Karen Chapple, et al., Jumpstarting the Market for Accessory Dwelling Units: Lessons Learned from Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver (Terner Center for Housing
Innovation, UC Berkeley: 2017).
12. Tara Horn, Debi Elliott, and Amber Johnson, Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey for Portland, Eugene, and Ashland, Oregon (Survey Research Lab for the State of
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: September 2013).
13. “Oregon Strikes Exclusive Single-Family Zoning, But Effects May Take Years,” Oregon Public Broadcasting, July 3, 2019.
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Staff and Advisors
Leadership Team
Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director
Jennifer Robinson, Associate Director
Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager
Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager
Dianne Meppen, Director of Survey Research
Pamela S. Perlich, Director of Demographic Research
Juliette Tennert, Chief Economist
Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Director
James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow
Staff
Max Backlund, Senior Research Associate
Samantha Ball, Senior Research Associate
Mallory Bateman, Senior Research Analyst
Andrea Brandley, Research Associate
Marin Christensen, Research Associate
Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-Residence
John C. Downen, Deputy Director of Economic
and Public Policy Research
Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Analyst
Emily Harris, Demographer
Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician
Mike Hollingshaus, Senior Demographer
Thomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst
Meredith King, Research Associate
Jennifer Leaver, Senior Tourism Analyst
Levi Pace, Senior Research Economist
Shannon Simonsen, Research Coordinator
Joshua Spolsdoff, Research Economist
Paul Springer, Senior Graphic Designer
Laura Summers, Senior Health Care Analyst
Natalie Young, Research Analyst
Faculty Advisors
Matt Burbank, Faculty Advisor
Adam Meirowitz, Faculty Advisor
Senior Advisors
Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst
Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business
Theresa Foxley, EDCUtah
Dan Griffiths, Tanner LLC
Roger Hendrix, Hendrix Consulting
Joel Kotkin, Chapman University
Darin Mellott, CBRE
Chris Redgrave, Zions Bank
Bud Scruggs, Cynosure Group
Wesley Smith, Western Governors University
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Advisory Board
Conveners
Michael O. Leavitt
Mitt Romney
Board
Scott Anderson, Co-Chair
Gail Miller, Co-Chair
Doug Anderson
Deborah Bayle
Cynthia A. Berg
Roger Boyer
Wilford Clyde
Sophia M. DiCaro
Cameron Diehl
Lisa Eccles
Spencer P. Eccles
Christian Gardner
Kem C. Gardner
Kimberly Gardner
Natalie Gochnour
Brandy Grace
Clark Ivory
Mike S. Leavitt
Derek Miller
Ann Millner
Sterling Nielsen
Cristina Ortega
Jason Perry
Ray Pickup
Gary B. Porter
Taylor Randall
Jill Remington Love
Josh Romney
Charles W. Sorenson
James Lee Sorenson
Vicki Varela
Ruth V. Watkins
Ted Wilson
Ex Officio (invited)
Governor Gary Herbert
Speaker Brad Wilson
Senate President
Stuart Adams
Representative Brian King
Senator Karen Mayne
Mayor Jenny Wilson
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
Partners in the
Community
The following individuals
and entities help support
the research mission of the
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.
Legacy Partners
The Gardner Company
Intermountain Healthcare
Clark and Christine Ivory
Foundation
KSL and Deseret News
Larry H. & Gail Miller
Family Foundation
Mountain America Credit Union
Mitt and Ann Romney
Salt Lake City Corporation
Salt Lake County
University of Utah Health
Utah Governor’s Office of
Economic Development
WCF Insurance
Zions Bank
Executive Partners
Mark and Karen Bouchard
The Boyer Company
Salt Lake Chamber
Sustaining Partners
Clyde Companies
Dominion Energy
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Health Care Advisory Council
Nathan Checketts
Edward Clark
Joseph Miner
Mikelle Moore
Phillip Singer
Eric Hales
Stephen L. Walston
Chad Westover
RMF-30 Zoning District Text Amendments
Purpose:
a)Remove zoning barriers to development of housing
•Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022
b)Promote compatible development
•Purpose of the zoning district
•Plan Salt Lake
•Neighborhood Master Plans (Central Community and
Sugar House)
c)Encourage a variety of housing types
•Plan Salt Lake
•Neighborhood Master Plans (Central Community and
Sugar House)
RMF-30 Zoning District Text Amendments
Single
Family
64%
Duplex
15%
Multifamily
20%
Combo
1%
1,030 parcels
890 residential
RMF-30 Zoning District Text Amendments
Single-Family
Multi-Family (RMF)
Commercial/Other
RMF-30 Zoning District Text Amendments
1.Design Standards for New Buildings
Better design, compatibility, walkability
•Building Entrances
•Entry Features
•Durable Building Materials on street facing facades
•Minimum Glass on street facing facades
•Limiting Blank Walls
•Screening
2.New Building Forms
Compatibility, variety of size and type
RMF-30 Zoning District Text Amendments
3. Reduction of minimum lot area/unit
Primary barrier, compatibility, variety
2,000 sq ft / unit
1,500 sq ft / unit for cottage and tiny houses
➢8 units max. per multifamily bldg / 6 per rowhouse
82% can’t accommodate
multifamily
76% can’t accommodate
duplex
RMF-30 Zoning District Text Amendments
4. Remove minimum lot width
Secondary barrier, compatibility
5. Multiple structures on a lot
Efficiency, compatibility
50’ for single family and
duplex
80’ for multifamily
RMF-30 Zoning District Text Amendments
6. Unit bonus
Preservation of existing structures
1 bonus unit per single family or duplex
2 bonus units per multifamily
7. Lot width maximum
Minimize land banking
Overall development no greater than 110’
None
33%
Local and
National
35%
National
only
32%
Community Concerns and Comments
1.Lack of Affordable Housing as a Component of this
Amendment
•The goal for the RMF-30 amendment was to remove zoning
barriers for the development of ALL types of housing.
2.Displacement of Existing Units
Potential Changes to Existing RMF-30 Lots
Same or less
units
18%
1 or 2 more
units
52%
3+ units
30%
Planning Commission
3. Potential Demolition of Historic Structures
•Staff is introducing a unit bonus for the preservation of an
existing residential structure.
•Introduction of lot width maximum to discourage land banking.
Community Concerns and Comments
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Marcia L. White
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received: April 30, 2020
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council:5/8/2020
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 04/30/2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Marcia L. White, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-00313 – RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District Text Amendments
STAFF CONTACT: Mayara Lima, Principal Planner, mayara.lima@slcgov.com, (801)535-
7118
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and approve Petition PLNPCM2019-00313 for text amendments to the RMF-30
Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District
BUDGET IMPACT: None. The proposal involves changing the text in the zoning ordinance.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On April 4, 2019, Mayor Jackie Biskupski initiated a petition requesting that the Planning Division
amend Section 21A.24.120 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regarding the RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential District to remove zoning barriers to housing development as recommended
within Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan (2018-2022). Strict zoning standards in the RMF-30
zoning district do not allow for multi-family developments – three or more units – on an average size lot
in the district. Therefore, multiple amendments are being proposed to allow for multi-family housing that
is compatible in size and scale with existing buildings in areas zoned RMF-
30.These text amendments include:
1. Introducing design standards for all new development
2. Allowing the construction of compatible multi-family building types including cottage
developments, sideways row houses, and tiny houses without special approval
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
3. Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit
4. Removing minimum lot width requirements
5. Allowing more than one building on a lot without public street frontage
6. Granting a unit bonus for the retention of an existing structure on a lot
7. Introducing a lot width maximum to discourage land banking
The following section provides a summary of each of the proposed RMF-30 text amendments
that received a positive recommendation by the Planning Commission on September 25, 2019.
For further details please refer to the June 26th Staff Report and September 25th
Memorandum contained in Exhibit 3.
Summary of Proposed Text Amendments
1. Design Standards –
Design standards for new construction are intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to
shape and promote a walkable environment in specific zoning districts, foster place making as a
community and economic development tool, protect property values and assist in maintaining the
established character of the city. Design requirements are in place within many of the city’s
commercial and mixed-use zoning districts, but not in any of the RMF (Multi-Family Residential)
districts. The following design elements consistent with Chapter 21A.37: Design Standards of the
Zoning Ordinance will be required for all new development in the RMF-30 district:
Durable Building Materials – Other than windows and doors, 50% of a new building’s
street facing façade shall be clad in durable materials including stone, brick, masonry,
textured or patterned, and fiber cement board. Traditional stucco falls under masonry.
Other durable materials may be approved at the discretion of the planning director.
Glass – All new buildings shall have at least 20% of glass (windows, doors, etc.) on the
ground floor street facing façade(s) and 15% on the upper street facing façade(s).
Building Entrances – At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is
required for every street facing façade, which includes corner façades.
Blank Wall Maximum – The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by
windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground level along any street facing
facade is 15 feet.
Screening of Mechanical Equipment and Services Areas – All mechanical
equipment and service areas shall be screened from public view and sited
to minimize their visibility and impact.
RMF Entry Features – Along with required building entrances, each entrance shall have
one of the following entry features including lighting and a walkway that connects to a
public sidewalk.
a. Covered Porch – A covered, raised porch structure with or without railings spanning at least a third the
length of the front building façade.
b. Portico – A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported by columns over a
landing or walkway.
c. Awning or Canopy – A cover suspended above the building entry over a landing or walkway where the
wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by at least one foot (1’) from the front building plane.
d. Emphasized Doorway – A doorway that is recessed by at least ten inches (10’’) from the front building
plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a different material than the front façade,
differentiated patterns or brickwork around the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need not be recessed
more than six inches (6’’) on a tiny house.
2. New Building Forms in RMF-30 –
In addition to single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings, etc., the City would
like to encourage three specific housing types or forms in the RMF-30 zoning district that may
allow for slightly higher unit counts, but are also compatible in mass and scale with existing
development areas zoned RMF-30. These three types include cottage developments, side
oriented row houses and tiny houses that otherwise would be difficult to construct in RMF
districts without special approval.
Cottage Developments consist of two or more detached dwelling units, where each unit appears
to be a small single-family home, arranged around common green or open space. The City would
like to encourage this building type as each unit is limited in size and; therefore, works well as
compatible infill development and promotes homeownership. Specifically, units would be
limited to 850 feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area and 23’ tall for a pitched roof or
16’ tall for a flat roof.
Sideways Row Houses where the entries of single-family attached units face the side of a lot as
opposed to the street are difficult to build in any zoning district because code currently does not
allow lots without public street frontage. With intentional design, side oriented row houses can
make good use of the long narrow lots in the city while maintaining compatibility with lower-
scale residential development. These forms are frequently reviewed by the Planning Commission
and just as frequently approved provided that the front-most unit is completely oriented to the
street and adequate buffers are maintained around the property. Therefore, it is being proposed
that side oriented row houses be allowed by right, per the additional design
standards below. Keep in mind that these standards will be applied in
conjunction with the proposed standards in Chapter 21A.37: Design
Standards.
i.Setbacks: Setbacks shall be applied as depicted in Reference Illustration 21A.24.120B.
The interior side yard setbacks shall be ten feet (10’) on one side and six feet (6’) on the
other. A sideways row house is not subject to provision 21A.24.H of this section
regarding buildings with side entries.
ii.Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a public street shall have its primary
entrance on the street facing façade of the building with an entry feature per chapter
21A.37 of this title.
iii.Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that is
parallel to, or located along, a public street.
iv.Required Glass: Ground and upper floor glass requirements shall apply per section
21A.37.060 and table 21A.37.060 of this title to the front and interior facades of a
sideways row house.
Tiny Houses are limited by building code to 400 square feet
maximum in area excluding lofted space. A tiny home differs
from a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as they are
more limited in size and would not have to be owner occupied
or associated with a single-family home. These structures
would also have a permanent foundation and could not be on
wheels. Tiny houses can be built today, but are treated the
same as a single-family home and require 5,000 square feet of
land area to build. This amount of land is not necessary for a
400 square-foot structure. Therefore, standards are being
proposed to allow these structures on smaller lots with
reduced setbacks, building height, etc.
3. Reduced Lot Area Requirements –
In most residential zoning districts in the city, the Zoning Ordinance regulates the number of units
per square footage of land area – otherwise known as density requirements. Currently, the RMF-30
zone permits one multi-family unit per every 3,000 square feet of land (must have at least 3 units to
have a multi-family building or 9,000 square feet of land). Considering that about half
of existing lots in the RMF-30 zone fall between 3,000 and 6,000 square feet, these lots
couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single-family home, which is why these area
requirements must be revised.
The Central Community Master Plan, where the majority of the RMF-30 properties are located,
calls for 10-20 units per acre in areas that have been designated as Low Medium Density
Residential, which represents the RMF-30 district. The Sugar House Master Plan designates
RMF-30 areas as Medium Density Residential, which calls for 8-20 units per acre. Therefore, the
3,000 square foot requirement for multi-family units (14 units per acre) is proposed to be
reduced to 2,000 square feet (21 units per acre), which optimizes the recommendation of this
future land use designation. Reducing this requirement to an even 2,000 square feet instead of
the exact 20 units per acre at 2,178 square feet also allows the average size lot in the RMF-30
district of 6,114 square feet to accommodate three units as opposed to two. As noted in the table
below, the propose area requirement for cottage houses and tiny houses will be reduced further
to 1,500 as these building types are limited in size and can fit on smaller lots.
LAND USE CURRENT LOT AREA PROPOSED LOT AREA
REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT
Single-Family 5,000 2,000
Two-Family 8,000 (for 2 units)4,000 (for 2 units)
Multi-Family (Must have at least 3 units)9,000 (for 3 units)6,000 (for 3 units)
Single-Family Attached/Row House 9,000 (for 3 units)6,000 (for 3 units)
(Must have at least 3 attached units)
Cottage Development (New Form)n/a 3,000 (for 2 units)
(Must have at least 2 cottages)
Tiny House (New Form)n/a 1,500
4. Removal of Required Lot Width –
In addition to required lot area, Salt Lake
City’s Zoning Ordinance also requires that
lots be a certain width for different land
uses. Currently, lots are required to be at
least 80-100 feet wide in the City’s Multi-
Family Residential (RMF) zoning districts
to accommodate a new multi-family use (3
or more housing units). These requirements
do not reflect the established lot width patterns in the RMF-30 district with an average lot width
is 58 feet and where more than half of existing lots are under 50 feet wide. For example, the
vacant lot pictured above couldn’t accommodate more than two units because it is less than 80
feet wide, though it has enough lot area to accommodate three units.
Many other standards are in place that encourage adequate lot widths and spacing between
buildings including required side yard setbacks, driveway widths and building code standards.
Per the proposed updates, minimum lot width requirements would be removed.
5. More Than One Principal Structure on A Lot –
Constructing more than one principal structure on a lot that do not all have public street frontage
is currently not permitted in RMF districts without planned development approval. The idea
behind this is to discourage new buildings with poor access and little visibility for general safety
purposes. However, Salt Lake City’s deeper lots tend to have a significant amount of
underutilized land towards their rear and can have more than adequate access and visibility.
Allowing multiple buildings on a lot may encourage more efficient and creative developments.
Other zoning, building code, and fire regulations besides this limitation on multiple structures on
a lot also work together to ensure adequate access and visibility.
Provided that the additional structures meet all other zoning/city department standards, it is
being proposed that more than one principal structure be permitted on all lots in the RMF-30
zoning district. Both cottage developments and sideways row houses would also be able to create
lots without public street frontage per the additional standards listed under these building forms.
Mechanisms to Limit Demolition
6. Unit Bonus for the Maintenance of Existing Structures –
In an effort to maintain existing and/or affordable housing stock in the RMF-30 while
allowing for some new development, a unit bonus is being proposed to apply when housing
is retained. Because the updates to lot area requirements may allow additional units to be
added on a lot, this unit bonus will apply when a building permit is applied for to add an
additional housing unit(s) to an existing structure – internal or external – that meets lot area
requirements and the existing structure on the lot is retained. The idea is that this unit
bonus would encourage units to be added onto or within existing structures (single-
family homes in particular) as opposed to demolishing the existing structure and
rebuilding fewer units than what could be achieved with the bonus. One bonus unit will
be granted for the retention of a single-family home or duplex and two bonus units will be
grated for the retention of multi-family buildings (3 or more units).
7. Lot Width Maximum –
In an effort to minimize of collection of multiple parcels or “land banking” to
accommodate large developments, a lot width maximum is proposed that would limit the
widths of new lots to 110 feet wide or less. The maximum would be applied to the
development as a whole as opposed to individual lots within a development. Based on
average lots widths in the RMF-30 district, this would typically prevent the consolidation
of more than three parcels.
Planning Commission
This petition was initially presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on June
26, 2019. The Commission brought up multiple big picture questions, which were subsequently
addressed in the September 25th memo. Three members of the public spoke and expressed
concerns that the proposal would not do enough to create new affordable units, would trigger the
demolition existing affordable units and would limit community involvement in terms of no
longer reviewing sideways row houses as planned developments. The Commission tabled the
request to give staff additional time for fine tuning of the text amendment language.
The petition went back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on September 25, 2019.
Staff made some additional changes to the amendments that differed from what was presented to
the Commission in June in an effort to address some of the publics’ and Commissioners’
concerns. These additional changes are detailed in the September 25th memo and are included in
the proposed text amendment language. Several members of the public spoke both in favor and
against the proposed changes as documented in the September 25th meeting minutes. Following
the public hearing, the Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council by a vote of 8-0 per the following conditions:
1. Provisions for tiny homes are removed from the proposed text amendment until
further study is done – clarify what [provisions] mean, what [tiny house
developments] would look like, and how they would function.
2. That staff does further review of design standards for the sideways row house
developments to identify how the front relates to the street and pedestrian and how
the sides relate to the street view as a particular lot warrants.
1. Tiny House Allowance – Staff proposed to add tiny houses as a permitted building type in the
RMF-30 district after multiple community members expressed their interest in them during the
project’s community engagement period. Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance does not prohibit
tiny homes, but the 5,000 square foot lot size requirement renders them unrealistic to build. The
proposal reduces this requirement to 1,500 square feet per tiny house.
The Planning Commission commented that tiny houses and tiny house communities may not fit
in with established neighborhoods in the city. Assessing the existing building typology in RMF-
30 areas, multiple building forms are found along streetscapes of both smaller and larger scales.
Staff does not feel that the addition of a tiny house along an established streetscape would
interfere with the cohesion of a given street or physical character of a certain area. Facilitating
the construction of tiny houses – and a variety of housing types in general – is something that the
housing plan and city-wide master plans specifically encourage.
Staff envisions that tiny houses would be built in addition to an existing structure on a lot;
however, multiple tiny houses could be sited on a single lot as long as all other zoning standards
are met. Staff does not take issue with multiple tiny houses on a lot, but a limitation of eight
houses per development could be imposed similar to a cottage development if the City Council
felt it to be necessary. The Council could also remove the standards for tiny houses all together
and, if a tiny house were to be built, the standards for single-family homes would apply.
2. Design Standards for Sideways Row Houses – When the proposed text amendments were
initially presented to the Planning Commission at the June 26th public hearing, the
Commission made the comment that the “delineation” standard for sideways row houses may
be too prescriptive and limit design as follows:
iv. Delineation: Each dwelling unit shall be delineated as an individual unit through the use of color,
materials, articulation of building walls, articulation in building height, lighting, and/or other
architectural elements.
This standard was proposed to help break up longer side building walls as not to loom over
neighboring properties; however, staff agreed that this delineation standard could restrict design,
is difficult to review, and other standards are in place to break up side building walls. Therefore,
the design standard was removed during the final tuning of the proposed amendments.
However, at the September 25th Planning Commission meeting, some Commissioners felt that
not enough was being done to break up these side walls and orient the building to the street as
indicated in their second condition. Staff asserts that sufficient design standards have been
proposed for sideways row houses, including required entry features and glass on the front and
interior of the building. If desired, this delineation standard could be added back into the text
amendment per the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
The Commission also indicted that they would like to continue to review sideways row houses as
planned developments instead of being reviewed by staff administratively, which is something
the Council may also wish to consider. Looking back at the sideways row house projects that
have gone to the Planning Commission over the past three years as planned developments,
almost all have been approved without additional design conditions imposed by the Commission.
The Housing Plan encourages more housing projects to be reviewed administratively. Therefore,
Staff does not feel that these particular building forms need to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
A work session was held with the Planning Commission on December 12, 2018.
Recognized community-based organizations that contain land zoned RMF-30 were
notified of the proposed text amendments via email on February 13, 2019.
An open house was held at Salt Lake City’s Downtown Library on February 26, 2019.
Planning staff presented at the Sugar House Community Council on March 18, 2019.
Planning staff presented at the East Central Community Council on March 21, 2019.
Planning staff presented at the Central City Community Council on April 3, 2019.
A focus group was held with local professionals on April 2, 2019.
A work session was held with the Historic Landmark Commission on May 2, 2019.
The public hearing notice for the June 26th Planning Commission meeting was posted
on City and State websites and sent via email to the Planning listserv on June 14, 2019.
The newspaper notice for the June 26th Planning Commission meeting ran June 15, 2019.
A public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on June 26, 2019. The
Commission reviewed the petition during the public hearing and voted table the text
amendment per Planning Staff’s request.
The public hearing notice for the September 25th Planning Commission meeting
was posted on City and State websites and sent via email to the Planning listserv on
September 12, 2019.
The newspaper notice for the September 25th Planning Commission meeting
ran September 14, 2019.
The public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on September 25, 2019. The
Commission reviewed the petition during the public hearing and voted to forward a positive
recommendation with conditions to City Council for the zoning text amendment.
EXHIBITS:
1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
a) JUNE 26, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
i. ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK
ii. STAFF REPORT
iii. AGENDA & MINUTES
iv. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Published
b) SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
i. ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK
ii. MEMORANDUM
iii. AGENDA & MINUTES
iv. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Published
4) ORIGINAL PETITION
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of2020
(An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A
pertaining to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District)
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
pertaining to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2019-00313.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on
September 25, 2019 to consider a petition submitted by then Mayor Jackie Biskupski (Petition
No. PLNPCM2019-00313) to amend Section 21A.24.120; and
WHEREAS, at its September 25, 2019 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor
of transmitting a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition with
conditions; 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.24.120. That
Section 21A.24.120 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: RMF-30 Low
Density Multi-Family Residential District) shall be, and hereby is amended to read as follows:
21A.24.120: RMF-30 LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose ofthe RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family
Residential District is to provide area in the city for various multi-family housing
1
types that are small scale in nature and that provide a transition between single-
family housing and larger multi-family housing developments. The primary
intent of the district is to maintain the existing physical character of established
residential neighborhoods in the city, while allowing for incremental growth
through the integration of small scale multi-family building types. The
standards for the district are intended to promote new development that is
compatible in mass and scale with existing structures in these areas along with a
variety of housing options. This district reinforces the walkable nature of multi-
family neighborhoods, supports adjacent neighborhood-serving commercial
uses, and promotes alternative transportation modes.
B. Uses: Uses in the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District, as
specified in section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For
Residential Districts'', of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions
set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section.
C. Multiple Buildings on a Single Parcel: More than one principal building may be
located on a single parcel, without all having public street frontage, provided that
all other zoning requirements are met. Where new principal buildings do not
have public street frontage, design standards applicable to street facing facades
in Chapter 21A.37 of this title shall be applied to the building face where the
primary entrance is located.
D. Lot Width Maximum: The width of a new lot shall not exceed one hundred
and ten feet (11 O'). Where more than one lot is created, the combined lot
width of adjacent lots within a new subdivision, including area between lots,
shall not exceed one hundred and ten feet (11 O').
E. Density Bonus: To encourage the preservation of existing structures, bonus
dwelling units may be granted when an existing principal structure is retained
as part of a project that adds at least one additional dwelling unit on the same lot
pursuant to the following:
1. A density bonus may only be requested at the time of filing for a building
permit application to add at least one additional unit on a lot where that unit
meets the minimum lot area requirement.
2.One (1) bonus unit may be granted for retaining an existing single or two-family
structure and two (2) bonus units for retaining an existing multi-family structure.
3. A bonus unit may be added within or attached to the existing principal structure or
as a separate building provided that all other applicable zoning requirements are
met. Bonus units are not subject to minimum lot area requirements.
4. The addition of a bonus unit to an existing principal structure does not
change the building type of the existing structure.
2
5. Bonus units are exempt from off-street parking requirements.
6. The exterior building walls and rootline ofthe existing principal structure
must be retained to obtain a bonus unit; however, architectural elements
such as window openings and doorways may be modified; dormers may
be added; and additions to the rear of the structure are allowed.
7. Any density bonus granted will be documented through a zoning certificate
in accordance in Chapter 21A.08. The zoning certificate will be issued by
the Building Services Division once the bonus unit has passed its final
building inspection. The certificate will indicate that this unit was
established through the preservation ofthe existing structure on the site.
F. RMF-30 Building Types: The permitted building types are described in this
subsection. Each building type includes a general description and definition.
These definitions in Section 21A.24.120F shall prevail over those in the
definitions in Chapter 21A.62 ofthis title as applied to this section.
1. Single-Family Dwelling: A detached residential structure that contains one
(1) dwelling unit. The structure has an entry facing the street, a front porch or
landing, and a front yard.
2. Two-Family Dwelling: A residential structure that contains two (2) dwelling
units in a single building. The units may be arranged side by side, up and
down, or front and back. Each unit has its own separate entry directly to the
outside. Dwellings may be located on separate lots or grouped on one lot.
3. Cottage Development: A unified development that contains a minimum of
two (2) and a maximum of eight (8) 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.
a. Additional Development Standards for Cottage Building Forms:
i. Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a
minimum setback of eight feet (8') from another cottage.
ii. Area: No cottage shall have more than eight hundred and fifty square
feet (850 ft2) of gross floor area, excluding basement area
iii. Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a
common open space.
iv. Open Space: A minimum of two hundred fifty square feet (250 ft2) of
common, open space is required per cottage. At least fifty percent (50%) of
the open space shall be contiguous and include landscaping and walkways
or other amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
3
v. Parking: A minimum of one (1) off street parking space per unit is required.
b. Cottage Units on Individual Lots without Public Street Frontage: Lots without
public street frontage may be created to accommodate cottage developments
without planned development approval per the following standards.
i.Required setbacks in Table 21A.24.120G shall be applied to the perimeter of the
cottage development as opposed to each individual lot within the development.
The front and comer yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped
yards.
ii. Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development as opposed to
each individual lot within the development.
iii. Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the cottage development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv. A final subdivision plat is required for any cottage development creating
individual lots without public street frontage. The final plat must document
the following:
1. The new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or
a shared driveway.
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure
associated with the new lots per Section 21A.55.l 10 of this title is
submitted with the preliminary subdivision plat.
4. Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one
common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where each unit's entry faces a
public street. A row house contains a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of
six ( 6) residential dwelling units in order to maintain the scale found within the
RMF-30 zoning district. Each unit may be on its own lot, however, each lot
must have frontage on a public street unless approved as a planned
development.
5. Sideways Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at
least one common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where each unit's
entry faces a side yard as opposed the front yard. A sideways row house
contains a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) residential dwelling
units in order to maintain the scale found within the RMF-30 zoning district.
Each unit may be on its own lot.
a. Additional Development Standards for Sideways Row House Building Forms:
i. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be applied as depicted in Reference Illustration
21A.24.120B. The interior side yard setbacks shall be ten feet (1 O') on one
4
side and six feet (6') on the other. A sideways row house is not subject to
Subsection 21A.24.010H of this section regarding buildings with side entries.
ii. Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a public street shall have its
primary entrance on the street facing fa~ade of the building with an entry
feature per Chapter 21A.37 of this title.
iii. Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the f~ade of the building that is
parallel to, or located along, a public street.
iv. Required Glass: Ground and upper floor glass requirements shall apply per
Section 21A.37.060 and Table 21A.37.060 of this title to the front and each
interior f~ade of a sideways row house.
b. Sideways Row House Units on Individual Lots without Public Street Frontage: Lots
without public street frontage may be created to accommodate sideways row houses
without planned development approval per the following standards:
i. Required setbacks shall be applied to the perimeter of the row house
development as opposed to each individual lot within the development. The
front and comer side yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped
yards.
ii. Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development as opposed to
each individual lot within the development.
iii. Required off street parking for a unit within the row house development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv. A final subdivision plat is required for any row house development creating
individual lots without public street frontage. The final plat must document the
following:
1. The new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or
a shared driveway.
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure
associated with the new lots per Section 21A.55.110 of this title is
submitted with the preliminary subdivision plat.
5
REFERENCE ILLUSTRATION 21A.24.120B
Required Setbacks for Public Street Facing Row House
Units on Separate Lots
IR IR
+I I++I
IF IF
Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House
Units on Separate Lots
IR IR
6'
~~
s s
6'10'6'10'
~~~~
s s s s
6'
~~
s s
-~
IF IF
F = Front Yard Adjacent to a Public Street
S =Side Yard
R=RearYard
6. Multi-Family Residential: A multi-family residential structure containing at
least three (3) dwelling units that may be arranged in a number
ofconfigurations. A maximum of eight (8) dwellings units are allowed in
each multi-family residential building.
6
7. Tiny House: A detached residential structure that contains one (1) dwelling
unit with a pennanent foundation that is four hundred square feet (400 ft2)
or less in usable floor area excluding lofted space. The structure has a single
entry facing the street, an alley or open space on a lot, but shall not face an
interior property line.
a. Additional Development Standards for Tiny House Forms:
i. Balconies and Decks: Balconies and decks shall not exceed eighty square feet
(80ft2) in size when located above the ground level of the buildings and shall
be located a minimum of ten feet (1 O') from a side or rear yard lot line
unless the applicable side or rear yard lot line is adjacent to an alley.
ii. Rooftop Decks: Rooftop decks on tiny houses are prohibited.
iii. Parking: A minimum of one ( 1) off street parking space per unit is required.
8. Non Residential Building: A building that houses a non-residential use either
permitted or permitted as a conditional use in the RMF-30 zoning district.
G. RMF-30 Building Type Zoning Standards
Table 21A.24.120.G
Building Type
Single-Two-Multi-Row Sideways Cottage Tiny Non
Family Family Family House Row Develop House Residentia
Building Dwelling Dwelling Residen 1 House1 ment1 1 1 Building
Regulation tial
~
H Height 30'Pitched 16'30'
Roof-23'
Flat
Roof-16'r Front 20' or the average of the block face
yard
setback
~c Comer 10'
side
yard
setback
7
-s Interior 4' on one side 10'4'6' on one 4'10'
side 10' on the other side
yard
setback 10' on
the
other-
R Rear Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25'10'Minimum
yard of20% lot
depth,
need not
exceed
25'
Minimu 12,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 1,500 sq. ft. per 5,000 sq.
m lot dwelling unit ft. per
size2 buildingI-~~~-~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~--~~-~~~~--
DU
-
BC
-
LY
-
LB
Maxim 1 2 8 6 8 per 1 n/a
um developm
Dwellin ent
g Units
per
Form
Maxim 50%
um
Buildin
g
Covera
ge
Require The front and comer side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. d
Landsc
aped
Yards
Landsc x x x
ape
Buffers
per
subsecti
on
21A.48.
080Cof
8
l~I-II
G Attache Garage doors accessed from the front or comer side yard shall be no wider than 50%
d of the front facade of the structure and set back at least 5' from the street facing Garage building
facade and at least 20' from the property line. Interior side loaded garages are
spermitted.I Design All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in chapter 21A.37 of this Standar title.
ds
Notes:
1.See Subsection 21A.24.120F of this title for additional standards
2. Minimum lot size may be calculated for a development as whole as opposed to each
individual lot within a development.
H. Additional Lot Area Requirements: No minimum lot area is required for public or
private natural open space and conservation areas; public pedestrian pathways,
trails, greenways, parks and community gardens; or, public or private utility
transmission wires, lines, pipes, poles, and utility buildings or structures.
I.Accessory Uses, Buildings, And Structures: All accessory uses, buildings, and structures shall
comply with the applicable standards in Chapter 21A.40 and Section 21A.36.020 of this title.
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.37.050. That
Section 21A.37.050 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards: Design Standards
Defined) shall be, and hereby is amended to add a new subsection, which shall be added
alphabetically to Section 21A.37.050 and reads as follows:
P. Entry Features: Each required entrance per Section 21A.37.050D of this title shall include a
permitted entry feature with a walkway connected to a public sidewalk and exterior lighting
that highlights the entryway(s). Where buildings are located on a comer lot, only one street
facing f~ade must include an entry feature. Where a building does not have direct public
street frontage, the entry feature should be applied to the f~ade where the primary entrance is
determined to be located. A two-family dwelling arranged side by side, row house and
cottage development shall include at least one entry feature per dwelling unit.
9
1. Permitted Encroachments: A permitted entry feature may encroach up to five feet (5')
into a required front yard; however, in no case shall an encroachment be closer than five
feet (5') to a front property line. A covered entry feature encroaching into a front yard
may not be enclosed.
2. Permitted Entry Features:
a. Covered Porch - A covered, raised porch structure with or without railings
spanning at least a third the length of the front building fa~ade.
Entry Feature II Covered Porch
(aerial view)
Minimum ol1f3theleogth
of the fll)f)t builOing facade
(front view)(slOeviev.o)
10
b. Portico - A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported by
columns over a landing or walkway.
Entry Feature II Portico
(aerial view)
BBB
B
(t Olltview)(s«:le view)
c. Awning or Canopy - A cover suspended above the building entry over a landing or
walkway where the wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by at least one
foot (1 ' )from the front building plane.
Entry Feature II Awning or Canopy
(aerial view)
D --fo--o--f bdl
~-
.a.
p -f D--_D-f
...e======="
---~----~
-
--,'
{from view)(side view)
11
d. Emphasized Doorway-A doorway that is recessed by at least ten inches (10") from
the front building plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a
different material than the front fac;ade, differentiated patterns or brickwork around
the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need not be recessed more than six inches (6")
on a tiny house.
Entry Feature II Emphasized Doorway
1o~ Min
B BB
(front view)
+-- Recessed min of 1O"
(siOOYiew)
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection Table 21A.37.060A.
That Subsection Table 21A.37.060A of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Design Standards:
Design Standards Required in Each Zoning District: Residential Districts) shall be, and hereby is
amended to read as follows:
A. Residential districts:
12
District
r=r=r=r=1~~r:-Standard 1-3o- l-35- l-45 l-75 IRB 135- 145- IMU ao
(Code Section)
-~~undflooru-se~I llFFI
(21A.37.050Al)I I I I I I
Ground floor use
+ visual interest
(%)
(21A.37.050A2)
Building 50 80 80
materials: ground
floor(%)
(21A.37.050Bl)
Building 50
materials: upper
floors(%)
(21A.37.050B2)
Glass: ground
floor(%)
(21A.37.050Cl)
Building entrances X 75 75 x
(feet)
(21A.37.050D)
Blank wall:
maximum length
13
District
f~fr:FStandardRMF- RMF- RMF-MU- MU- R-
(Code Section)354575 RB35- ff45-pMU RO-~~.0SOE)11111111
37
Street facing
facade: maximum
length (feet)
(21A.37.050F)
Upper floor step
(21A.37.050G)11111111
back (feet)
- Lighting:-exterior 11111111 ----
(21A.37.050H)IIII IIII
Lighting: parking 11111111 lot (21A.37.050I)
Screening of x x x x
mechanical
equipment
(21A.37.050J)
Screening of
service areas
(21A.37.050K)
Ground floor
residential
entrances
(21A.37.050L)
14
District
r=r=r=r=1~~r:-Standard 1-3o- l-35- l-45 l-75 IRB 135- 145- IMU RO
(Code Section)
-::~:e~arag-esor~I 11111---
(21A.37.050M)I I I I I I
Residential x character in RB
District
(21A.37.050N)
Entry Features 1 1111111
(21A.37.050P)
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
15
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this __ day of _____~ 2020.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on __________
Mayor's Action: ___Approved.---Vetoed.
MAYOR
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. --- of 2020.APPROVED AS TO FORM
Published: ------Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
By- ~
AllisonM~O)
16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
a) JUNE 26, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
i.ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK
ii.STAFF REPORT
iii.AGENDA & MINUTES
iv.PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLISHED
b) SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PUBLIC HEARING
i.ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK
ii.MEMORANDUM
iii.AGENDA & MINUTES
iv.PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER STAFF REPORT PUBLISHED
4.ORIGINAL PETITION
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PETITION: PLNPCM2019-00313 – RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning
District Text Amendments
January 30, 2017 Petition for zoning map amendment to update lot width
requirements in the RMF-30 zoning district was received by the
Planning Division (scope of petition was updated at a later date).
January 30, 2017 Petition was assigned to Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner, for staff
analysis and processing.
December 12, 2018 Planning staff presented the proposed text amendments to the
Planning Commission at a briefing to inform them of the project
and obtain initial feedback.
February 13, 2019 Recognized community-based organizations that contain land
zoned RMF-30 were notified of the proposed text amendments via
email in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day
recognized organization input and comment period.
February 14, 2019 All recognized community-based organizations were notified of
the proposed text amendments via standard open house noticing.
February 26, 2019 Open house was held at Salt Lake City’s downtown public library.
March 18, 2019 Planning staff presented proposed text amendments to the Sugar
House Land Use Committee.
March 21, 2019 Planning staff presented proposed text amendments to the East
Central Community Council.
April 1, 2019 45-day comment period for Recognized Organizations ended.
April 2, 2019 Focus group was held with local professionals including architects
and developers who have done work in RMF-30 districts previously.
April 3, 2019 Planning staff presented proposed text amendments to the Central
City Community Council.
April 9, 2019 Petition for zoning map amendment to update all requirements in
the RMF-30 zoning district was received by the Planning Division
(scope of petition expanded from initial 2017 request).
May 2, 2019 Planning staff presented the proposed text amendments to the
Historic Landmark Commission at a briefing to inform them of the
project and obtain feedback.
June 14, 2019 Public notice was posted on City and State websites and sent via
the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting.
June 15, 2019 Newspaper notice ran.
June 26, 2019 Public hearing with the Planning Commission was held. Planning
Commission tabled the item per planning staff’s request.
September 12, 2019 Public notice was posted on City and State websites and sent via
the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting.
September 14, 2019 Newspaper notice ran.
September 25, 2019 Planning Commission held public hearing. The Planning
Commission reviewed the petition, conducted a public hearing and
voted to forward a positive recommendation with conditions to the
City Council for the zoning text amendment.
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2019-00313: RMF-30 Low
Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District Text Amendments - The purpose of this
project is to review the existing zoning requirements in the City’s RMF-30 Low Density Multi-
Family Residential Zoning District and make amendments to corresponding sections of Salt Lake
City’s Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the proposed amendments is to implement multiple
master plan policies found in Plan Salt Lake, various community master plans, the recently
adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year Housing Plan (2018-2022) and remove zoning barriers to
housing development. The RMF-30 zoning district is located throughout the city. Proposed
amendments include:
• Introducing design standards for all new development
• Allowing the construction of new building types including sideways row houses, cottage
developments, and tiny houses
• Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit
• Removing lot width minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum
• Allowing more than one primary structure on a lot
• Granting a density bonus for the retention of an existing structure
The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.24.120 of the zoning ordinance.
Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff
Contact: Mayara Lima at (801) 535-7118 or Mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2019-00313
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b). Please visit
https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city-council-meetings/
to learn how you can share your comments live during electronic City Council meetings.
If you would like to provide feedback or comment, via email or phone, please contact us
at: 801-535-7654 (24-Hour comment line) or by email at:
council.comments@slcgov.com.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Mayara Lima at 801-535-7118 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday or via e-mail at Mayara.lima@slcgov.com.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48
hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two
business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26,
2019 i. ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK
4770 S. 5600 W.
WEST VALLEY CJTY, UTAH 841 18
·.!..~t t \II .. ~l.t • r 1 1mrFED.TAX l.D .# 87-0217663
801-204-6910
PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'SCOPY
ICUSTOMER NAME AND ADDRESS ACCOUNT NUMBER
PLANN ING DIVISION,9001394298 Hone. of N>llc Hearing
On Wednesday, J..,., 26, 201 9, !he Solt Lake City
Planning Convnission will hold a public hearing to con-PO BOX 145480 sider making recoovnendations to !he City CO\JlCll re-DATE gar ding !he following petitions:
1. Text ~ to ttie RMF-3Q LOw Density t.11.J111-
Fanlly Resldenllal District - The purpose of !his proLectSALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 6/18/2019 is to review the existin9. zoning requirements in 1he Cit-
y's RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential ZOil·ing District and make amendments to correspondingsections of Salt Lake pty•s Zoning Ordinanoe. The in-ACCOUNT NAME tent of 111e propa!ed ailenclments is to implement 111eIrecently adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year Housing
Plan (2018-2022) and remave zoning barriers to newPLANNING DIVISION housin9 development. Proposed amendments include: In-•~~:i'~9 ~5~st~..';'~} ~~ ~~il~~g ~~~o~~~EPH~NE Ol'DER #',NVOJCC NUM.iBER ing side orlented row houses, cottage developments,ITE'L V J I ~and tiny houses; reduc:ing lot size requirements per unit;
r;:oo.;;~i '~;~~igi,'/:.~n~~~:.Sn ci~e ag~~~80 15357759 0001257969 st ruc:ture on a lot and !he creation of new lots wi!houtstreet frontage; and granting a 1.<1it bonus for !he re-i~i~a0~~ !filst~~~~i;;,,~1'f~~~'b r~?u~: UBLJ CATJON SCHEDULE zoning ordlnanoe. Related provisions of Title 21A·l Zoning may also be amended as part of !his petition.START 06/ J 5/20 J9 END 06/15/20 19 jStaff Contact· Lauren Parisi at (801} 535-7226 or
003;3parisi@slcgov.com) em. rum.tr PlM'CM2019-
CUSTOMER REFERENCE NUM BER The public hearing wm begin at 5,30 p.m. in room 326I.of !he City County Building, 45 l Sou1h State Street,
Solt Lake Oty, UT.
Planning Commission 6/26/19 The City & County Building is an accessible facility.
.------------------------------------------. CAPTION I People wi!h disabilities may make requests for reason-
able accommodation, which may Include alternate for-
L------------------------------------------'I~~· ~:,e6~e~';,~~ ~~~~';,t"l':~~a~oa~~i~~ ~~;1 .0 w 26 2019 h s I L k c· Pl .c in advance.To make a request, please oontact !he
Notice of Public Hearing n ednesday, June 'I t e at a e 1ty anning orr Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service71 l .
1257'969 lJ>AXIPSIZE
46LINES 2 COLUMN(S)
ITIMES ITOTAL COST
2 120.00
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC dba UTAH MEDIA GROUP LEGAL BOOKER, I CERTIPY THAT THE ATTAC HED ADVERTI SEMEN T
OF Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, June 26, 2019, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making r
ecommendations to t FOR PLANNING DIVI SION, WAS PUBLI SHED BY THE NEWSPA PER AGENCY COM PANY, LLC dba UTAH MEDIA GROUP,
AGENT FOR DESERET NEWS AND THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRfNTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL
CIRCULATION IN UTAH, AND PUB LI SHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTA H. NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON
UTAHLEGALS.COM ON THE SAME DAY AS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DATE AND REMAfNS ON UTA I-JL EGALS.COM INDEFIN
ITELY . COMPLIES WITH UTAH DIG ITAL SIGNATURE ACT UTAH CODE 46-2-10 I; 46-3-104.
PUBLI SHED ON Start 06/15/2019 End 06115120 19
--------------------
DATE6/ 18/20 19 SIGNATURE ------------
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF ---"'S.A""L:....:_,_T-=L""'A:..:..:K=E' ---
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON T HI S 15TH DAY OFJUNE IN THE YEAR 2019
BY LORAIN E GUDMUNDSON.
JAE LEVI
NOTARY PUBLIC -STATE OF UTAH
My Comm. Exp 05/29/2022 NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE
Commission # 700608
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26, 2019
ii. STAFF REPORT
Staff Report
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
TO:Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM:Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner
DATE:June 26th, 2019
RE:PLNPCM2019-00313 - Text Amendments to the RMF-30
Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Wide
PARCEL ID: N/A
MASTER PLAN: Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 / Plan Salt Lake
ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
REQUEST: A request by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to review the zoning standards of the RMF-
30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort
to remove zoning barriers to housing development as recommended within Growing
SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan (2018-2022). The proposed text amendments to the
RMF-30 District include:
1. Introducing design standards for all new development
2. Allowing the construction of new building types including side oriented row houses,
cottage developments, and tiny houses without special approval
3. Reducing lot size requirements
4. Removing lot width minimums
5. Allowing more than one building on a lot without planned development approval
6. Granting a unit bonus for the retention of a structure on a lot
7. Introducing a maximum lot width for newly created lots
RECOMMENDATION: At this time, staff recommends that the Planning Commission table
petition PLNPCM2019-00313 regarding updates to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-
Family Residential Zoning District and make a recommendation to City Council at a
later date once the proposed text amendments have been finalized.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Proposed Text Amendments
B.Informational Maps
C.Analysis of Standards
D.Public Process and Comments
E.City Department Comments
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of this project is to review the zoning standards within the RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort to remove zoning
barriers to housing development as recommended within Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing
Plan (2018-2022). For some time, staff has recognized that many of the zoning standards within
the city’s four multi-family residential (RMF) zoning districts can be quite restrictive and limit
creative housing development, which is why these amendments are being proposed starting the
lowest density RMF-30 district. The goal is to solidify changes to this multi-family district first,
and apply similar changes to the rest of the multi-family districts in the near future.
A Closer Look at RMF-30.
The majority of Salt Lake City’s RMF-30 districts are scattered throughout the northern center
of the City – north of Liberty Park, east of the Downtown and west of the University of Utah.
There is also a large concentration of RMF-30 just south of 1-80 off of 700 East. City data
indicates there are approximately:
1,028 RMF-30 parcels .06 acres (2,613 square feet) or greater – large enough to build upon
331 RMF-30 are located in a local historic district where the demolition of historic structures
must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission
3,212 parcels .06 acres or greater in all RMF-30, -35, -45 and -75 zoning districts.
*Larger maps of all of the RMF zoning districts and the RMF-30 lots located within a local
historic district can be found in Attachment B.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 2
Lot Size
The average lot size in the RMF-30 zone is 6,114 square feet1; however, as illustrated by the
distribution graph below, close to half of the lots (487 of 1,028) fall between 3,000 – 6,000
square feet in size. By current standards, the average lot couldn’t accommodate
anything more than a single-family home, which requires 5,000 square feet of lot area
per unit. Three quarters of the lots (783) couldn’t accommodate a duplex or twin-home, which
requires 8,000 square feet of lot area per unit. There is no special process in place to request
additional units on a lot if it does not meet these minimum area requirements.
Lot Width
A similar pattern can be seen with existing lot widths in the city. The average lot width in the
RMF-30 zone is 58 feet wide2; however, 662 or 65% of the lots fall between 31 and 50 feet wide
– well under the 80-foot lot width requirement to accommodate a multi-family development or
3+ units without special approval. In fact, more than half of the lots are under 50 feet
wide, and do not have the width to accommodate a single-family home by current
standards. Required lot width can be modified through planned development approval.
To note – the total number of lot width measurements is greater than the total number of lots in the
RMF-30 district as it accounts for the two sides on every corner lot.
Land Use
RMF-30 Land Use Historic Designation
1%
20%32%33%
15%64%
35%
Single Family Duplex Multifamily Other None Local and National National only
1 66 outlier parcels removed from average over 14,000 square feet in area
2 42 outliers parcels removed with widths less than 25 feet and greater than 250 feet
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 3
Looking at existing land use on the 1,028 parcels in the RMF-30 district, Salt Lake County tax
assessor classifies: 565 as single-family homes, 130 as duplexes, 178 as multi-family buildings
(3+ units), and 14 as a combination of residential uses and the rest vary in use (vacant,
commercial, planned development, etc.). Of those 887 residential properties, 35% or 313 are
located in a local historic district where the demolition of historic structures must be reviewed
and approved by the City’s Historic Landmark Commission.
Missing Middle Housing. With the proposed RMF-30 updates, the City hopes to encourage
the development of “missing middle housing” in particular, which has been described as:
“Range of multi-unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes
that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living. These types provide diverse housing options
along a spectrum of affordability, including duplexes, fourplexes, and [cottage developments], to support
walkable communities, locally-serving retail, and public transportation options. Missing Middle Housing
provides a solution to the mismatch between the available U.S. housing stock and shifting demographics
combined with the growing demand for walkability” (Congress for the New Urbanism).
Diagram of Missing Middle Housing Types. Source: Opticos Design, Inc.
Missing middle housing is not a new type of housing. It’s housing that exists in Salt Lake City today:
duplexes, triplexes, fourplex buildings, townhouses, small-scale apartment buildings, etc. However,
more often than not, these housing types are difficult to build because they do not meeting current
zoning standards, especially in areas where they’re best suited near the city’s downtown, universities
and, of course, public transit. Below are some examples of existing missing middle housing types
that “fit in” with their surroundings while providing higher unit counts. Note the number of units
that exist on the lot, the number of units that are allowed per current RMF-30 standards.
682-688 E. 700 South – 16 units on 8,429 sq. ft. = 527 sq. ft. per
unit Current Allowance – 2 units
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 4
661 S. Green St. –10 units on 27,234 sq. ft. = 2,723 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 9 units (separate structures on single lot also not permitted)
852 S. 800 East –12 units on 17,424 sq. ft. = 1,452 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 5 units (separate structures on single lot also not permitted)
620 S. Park St. –12 units on 17,877 sq. ft. = 1,490 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 5 units
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 5
Proposed RMF-30 Text Amendments.
The following section of this report goes into more detail regarding each of the specific updates
being proposed to the RMF-30 zoning standards. By updating these standards, the City hopes to
remove some of the zoning barriers that limit new housing development, while encouraging
compatible design and maintaining existing housing stock. With this in mind, Planning Staff is
recommending implementing what could be described as “hybrid” form based standards.
Form based codes focus on the regulation of what buildings look like in terms of their compatibility
with existing buildings in a neighborhood as well as their relationship with the street or what is
referred to as the “public realm.” This differs from traditional zoning approaches, which emphasize
the separation of land uses – single-family here, multi-family over there, on this amount of land, etc.
With this hybrid approach, the proposed updates work to facilitate the development of slightly
denser, “missing-middle” housing types that fit in with existing development patterns in the RMF-30
districts, while continuing to regulate required lot area per unit.
1. Design Standards – Promote compatible design with durable building materials.
Design standards for new construction are intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to
shape and promote a walkable environment in specific zoning districts, foster place making as a
community and economic development tool, protect property values, assist in maintaining the
established character of the city, and implementing the city's master plans. Design requirements are
in place within many of the city’s commercial and mixed-use zoning districts, but not in any of the
RMF districts. Therefore, the following design requirements consistent with Chapter 21A.37: Design
Standards of the Zoning Ordinance are proposed to be applied to the RMF-30 district:
Durable Building Materials – Other than windows and doors, 50% of a new building’s
street facing façade shall be clad in durable materials including stone, brick, masonry,
textured or patterned, and fiber cement board. Traditional stucco falls under masonry.
Other durable materials may be approved at the discretion of the planning director.
Glass – All new buildings shall have at least 20% of glass (windows, doors, etc.) on the
ground floor street facing façade and 15% on the upper street facing façade.
Building Entrances – At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is
required for every street facing façade, which includes corner façades.
Blank Wall Maximum – The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows,
doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground level along any street facing facade is 15 feet.
Screening of Mechanical Equipment and Services Areas – All mechanical
equipment and service areas shall be screened from public view and sited to
minimize their visibility and impact.
RMF Entry Features – Along with required building entrances, each entrance
shall have one of the following entry features including lighting and a walkway
that connects to a public sidewalk:
a. Covered Porch – A covered, raised porch structure with or without railings spanning at least a
third the length of the front building façade.
b. Portico – A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported by columns or
enclosed by walls over a stoop or walkway.
c. Awning or Canopy – A hood or cover suspended above the building entry over a stoop or walkway where the
wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by at least one foot (1’) from the front building plane.
d. Emphasized Doorway – A doorway that is recessed by at least one foot (1’) from the front building
plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a different material than the front
façade, differentiated patterns or brickwork around the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need
not be recessed more than six inches (6’’) on a tiny house.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 6
2.New Building Forms in RMF-30 – Encourage building forms and arrangements
that are compatible with smaller-scale development with lower perceived density.
In addition to single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings, etc., the City would
like to encourage three new specific housing types or forms in the RMF-30 zoning district that
may allow for slightly higher unit counts, but are also compatible with existing development in
the area. These three types include cottage developments, side oriented row houses and tiny
houses that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed in RMF districts without special approval.
Cottage Developments are currently allowed in the city’s existing Form Based districts and are
defined as, “a unified development that contains two (2) or more 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.” Cottage structures have relatively small
footprints and are grouped in a communal fashion on a lot. The following design standards would be
applied to these forms including limiting usable floor area to 850 square feet.
i. Setbacks Between Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet (8') from
another cottage.
ii. Area: No cottage shall have more than eight hundred fifty (850) square feet of usable
floor area.
iii. Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space.
iv. Open Space: A minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of common, open space is
required per cottage up to a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet. At least fifty percent
(50%) of the open space shall be contiguous and include landscaping, walkways or other
amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 7
Side Oriented Row Houses where the entries of single-family attached units face the side of a lot
as opposed to the street are difficult to build in any zoning district because code currently does not
allow lots without public street frontage. With intentional design, side oriented row houses can make
good use of the long narrow lots in the city while maintaining compatibility with lower-scale
residential development. These forms are frequently reviewed by the Planning Commission and just
as frequently approved provided that the front-most unit is completely oriented to the street and
adequate buffers are maintained around the property. Therefore, it is being proposed that side
oriented row houses be allowed by right, per the additional standards below. Keep in mind that these
standards will be applied in conjunction with the proposed standards in Chapter 21A.37: Design
Standards and a special exception will be required if each unit is on its own lot.
i. Interior Setbacks: The interior side yard setbacks (S) shall be ten feet (10’)
on one side and six feet (6’) on the other.
ii. Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a street shall have its primary
entrance on the façade of the building parallel to the street with an entry
feature per section 21A.37 of this title.
iii. Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade facing the front yard area.
iv. Delineation: Each dwelling unit shall be delineated as an individual unit
through the use of color, materials, articulation of building walls,
articulation in building height, lighting, and/or other architectural elements.
v. Required Glass: For all floors or levels above the ground floor, a minimum of
twenty percent (20%) of all street facing facades must be glass. Interior
building facades shall also have a minimum of fifteen (15%) ground floor
glass and fifteen (15%) upper floor glass.
Tiny Houses are limited by building code to 400 square feet in area
excluding lofted space. A tiny home differs from a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as they
are more limited in size and would not have to be owner occupied or associated with a single-family
home. These structures would also have a permanent foundation and could not be on wheels. Tiny
houses can be built today, but are treated the same as a single-family home and require 5,000 square
feet of land area to build. This amount of land is not necessary for a 400 square-foot structure.
Therefore, standards are being proposed to allow these structures on smaller lots with reduced
setbacks, building height, etc. To note, the public has expressed a lot of interest in building these
types of structures, which is another reason why this form is being proposed.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 8
3. Reduced Lot Area Requirements – Allow multi-family housing on average size
lots equipped to accommodate multi-family development (3+ units).
In most residential zoning districts in the city, the Zoning Ordinance regulates the number of units
per square footage of land area – otherwise known as density requirements. Currently, the RMF-30
zone permits one multi-family unit per every 3,000 square feet of land (must have at least 3 units to
have a multi-family building or 9,000 square feet of land). Considering that about half of
existing lots in the RMF-30 zone fall between 3,000 and 6,000 square feet, these lots
couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single-family home. For additional
perspective, the existing historic developments on pages 4 and 5 of this report have between 530 to
1,500 square feet of land per unit. The Central Community Master Plan’s future land use designation
for these areas also calls for up to 20 units per acre or 2,178 square feet per unit.
It is clear that the existing lot area requirements do not promote multi-family housing, which is why this
proposal includes reducing the lot area requirements to 2,500 square feet per unit for traditional multi-
family units (apartment building and condo buildings) and to 1,500 square feet for row houses, cottage
developments and tiny house or building forms that can accommodate more units while remaining
compatible with lower density development. This proposal also tends to align with lot area requirements
in other urban areas of the country, which generally range from 1,500 to 2,900 square feet per unit.
Denver, for example, that utilizes a form based code, allows 10 units maximum on a minimum of 6,000
square feet in similar-type zoning districts. This equates to 6oo square feet of lot area per unit. Staff
acknowledges that this proposal for Salt Lake City’s RMF-30 zoning district is relatively moderate in
comparison to Denver. Current and proposed lot area requirements have been listed below and a table
with lot area requirements across the U.S. can be found in Attachment B.
LAND USE CURRENT AREA REQUIREMENT PROPOSED AREA REQUIRED
Single-Family 5,000 2,500
Two-Family 8,000 5,000
Multi-Family (Must have at least 3 units)3,000 (9,000 for first 3)2,500 (7,500 for first 3)
Single-Family Attached/Row House 3,000 (9,000 for first 3)1,500 (4,500 for first 3)
(Must have at least 3 units)
Cottage Development (New Form)n/a 1,500
Tiny House (New Form)n/a 1,500
With these changes to lot area, approximately 39% or 345 of the 887 residential RMF-30 properties
would become eligible to add at least one more unit in addition to the existing units(s) on the
property (excluding the addition of tiny houses). The eligibility maps in Attachment B highlight
these eligible parcels in green. Keep in mind that other factors may limit whether or not additional
units can be added on a lot including accommodating required setbacks, lot coverage, building and
fire code regulations, etc. Additionally, smaller lot size requirements should also promote smaller
and more affordable housing units. The City does acknowledge that smaller lot sizes may put
additional development pressure on lots with single-family homes, which is why some mechanisms
to limit demolition are being introduced as detailed in the changes below.
4. Removal of Required Lot Width –
Allow other building requirements to
drive lot width and remove this zoning
barrier to multi-family housing
development.
In addition to required lot area, Salt Lake
City’s Zoning Ordinance also requires that lots
be a certain width for different land uses.
Currently, lots are required to be at least 80-
100 feet wide in the City’s Multi-Family
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 9
Residential (RMF) zoning districts to accommodate a new multi-family use (3 or more housing
units). The City has found that these current requirements do not reflect the established lot
width patterns in the RMF zoning districts as discussed in the Closer Look at RMF-30 section of
this report and can, ultimately, impede housing development. For example, the vacant lot
pictured above could not be developed with more than three units as it does not have 80 feet of
lot width even though it meets the minimum lot size requirements.
Many other standards are in place that encourage adequate lot widths and spacing between
buildings including required side yard setbacks, driveway widths and building code standards.
Therefore, per the proposed updates, minimum lot width requirements would be removed.
5.More Than One Principal Structure On A Lot –
Allow for historic development pattern to occur
and encourage creative building arrangements.
Constructing more than one principal structure on a lot is
currently not permitted in RMF districts, unless both
structures have public street frontage. The idea behind this
is partly to discourage new buildings with poor access and
little visibility for general safety purposes. However, Salt
Lake City’s deeper lots tend to have a significant amount of
underutilized land towards their rear and can have more
than adequate access and visibility. Other zoning, building code, and fire regulations besides
this limitation on multiple structures on a lot also work together to ensure adequate access and
visibility. Constructing more than one building on a lot is characteristic of the historic
development pattern and tends to encourage creative housing developments. Today, planned
development approval is required for multiple structures on a lot. Therefore, provided that the
additional structures meet all other zoning/city department standards, it is being proposed that
more than one principal structure be permitted on all lots in the RMF-30 zoning district.
6 & 7 – Mechanisms to Limit Demolition
Unit Bonus for the Maintenance of Existing Structures – Incentivize the
retention of existing structures and creative housing solutions. In an effort to
maintain existing and/or affordable housing stock in the RMF-30 zone – particularly historic
or character-contributing buildings – while allowing for some new development, a unit
bonus is being proposed to apply when housing is retained. Because the updates to lot area
requirements may allow additional units to be added on a lot, this unit bonus will apply
when a building permit is applied for to add an additional housing unit(s) to an existing
structure – internal or external – that meets lot area requirements and the existing structure
on the lot is retained. The idea is that this unit bonus would encourage units to be
added onto or within existing structures (single-family homes in particular) as
opposed to demolishing the existing structure and rebuilding fewer units than
what could be achieved with the bonus. One bonus unit will be granted for the
retention of a single-family home or duplex and two bonus units will be grated for the
retention of multi-family buildings (3 or more units).
Lot Width Maximum – Discurage land banking and the demolition of
exsting structures. In an effort to minimize of collection of multiple parcels or “land
banking” to accommodate large developments, a lot width maximum is proposed that
would limit the widths of new lots to 110 feet wide or less. The maximum would be
applied to the development as a whole as opposed to individual lots within a
development. Based on average lots widths in the RMF-30 district, this would typically
prevent the consolidation of more than two parcels, or three at the very most.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 10
KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The following key considerations have been identified for the
Planning Commission’s review and potential discussion.
#1. Compliance with Citywide Master Plans
Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan (2018-2022)
The Growing SLC Housing Plan “outlines…solutions…[for reaching a point] where all residents,
current and prospective, regardless of race, age, economic status, or physical ability can find a
place to call home. To achieve this goal, the City’s housing policy must address issues of
affordability at the root cause, creating long-term solutions for increasing the housing supply,
expanding housing opportunities throughout the city, addressing systemic failures in the rental
market, and preserving our existing units” (p. 9). The proposed text amendments directly
support the following priorities identified in Growing SLC:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing market.
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
o 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along
significant transportation routes.
“Land use decisions of the 1990s came about as a reaction to the gradual
population decline that occurred over the preceding three decades.
Conversely, the city’s population has grown by 20 percent in the last two
decades, (the fastest rate of growth in nearly a century) presenting a need
for a fundamentally different approach. Household type and makeup has
also significantly changed to reflect smaller household sizes in the city.
Increasing flexibility around dimensional requirements and code
definitions will reduce barriers to housing construction that are
unnecessary for achieving city goals, such as neighborhood preservation. A
concentrated zoning and land use review is warranted to address these
critical issues and to refine code so that it focuses on form and scale of
development rather than intended use” (p. 18).
o 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase
housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional
units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
“In-fill ordinances provide both property owners and developers with options
to increase the number of units on particular parcels throughout the city. Such
options would also help restore the “missing middle” housing types where new
construction has principally been limited to single-family homes and multi-
story apartment buildings for decades. Missing middle housing types are those
that current zoning practices have either dramatically reduced or eliminated
altogether: accessory dwelling units, duplexes, tri-plexes, small multi-plexes,
courtyard cottages and bungalows, row houses, and small apartment
buildings. Finding a place for these housing types throughout the city means
more housing options in Salt Lake City, and restoring choices for a wider
variety of household sizes, from seniors to young families.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 11
Apart from traditional infill ordinances, responding to the unusual age,
form, and shape of housing stock should be addressed and leveraged to
add incremental density in existing structures. This would include
options for lot subdivision where there is ample space to build an
additional home on a property or alternatively expand rental
opportunities in existing structures” (p. 19).
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
o 1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for
those developers constructing new affordable units.
“Providing developers who build affordable units with a fast-tracked
permitting process will decrease the cost of those projects, increasing the
likelihood that such projects make it to the market. The process will
empower the administration with the authority to waive fees and expedite
City procedures” (p. 21).
Objective 3. Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.
o 1.3.1 Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as
construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form,
function, and maintenance.
“Additionally, the City will support the development of new or
underutilized housing types that meet the unique needs of the diverse
communities that live in Salt Lake City. This has already begun with
projects that focus on a significant mix of resident incomes and micro-
units and could be expanded to include other housing types. Efforts to
develop well-designed and well-built homes that serve the changing
needs of residents will improve housing choice into the future” (p. 22).
Plan Salt Lake (2015):
Plan Salt Lake identifies multiple ‘Guiding Principles,’ ‘Targets,’ and ‘Initiatives’ to help
the city achieve its vision over the next 25 years. This project supports the following:
Guiding Principle 1/Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for
social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
Initiatives:
3. Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out
their daily lives.
5. Support policies that provides people a choice to stay in their
home and neighborhood as they grow older and household
demographics change.
7. Promote accessible neighborhood services and
amenities, including parks, natural lands, and schools.
9. Support policies that provides people a choice to stay in
their home and neighborhood as they grow older and
household demographics change.
Guiding Principle 2/Growth: Growing responsibly, while providing people with
choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 12
Initiatives:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and
amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors.
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population.
Guiding Principle 3/Housing: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all
income levels throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and
responding to changing demographics.
Initiatives:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types
and options.
3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure
and services that have the potential to be people-oriented.
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing
neighborhoods where appropriate.
Salt Lake City Council’s 20 Guiding Principles on Housing
Development (2017)
Principal 6 – Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: i. Avoiding
displacement of existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and ii.
Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
Principal 8 – Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds
and incomes.
Principal 16 – Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply
including housing types that the private market does not sufficiently provide
such as family housing in the downtown area, innovative housing types, missing
middle housing and middle- to low-income apartments.
As documented above, the proposed text amendments are in line with goals and
objectives outlined in the City’s housing plan. Current lot area and width standards in
place make it difficult to develop multi-family housing in the city’s multi-family
zoning districts – let alone multi-family development that’s compatible with lower-
scale neighborhoods. Yet, not only does the city need more housing in general, there is
an increasing demand among millennials and baby boomers alike for smaller,
accessible units of higher quality construction that are easier to maintain. The
proposed text amendments aim not only remove restrictive zoning barriers to new
housing development that the city needs, but to facilitate missing-middle type housing
in walkable, desirable neighborhoods where RMF districts tend to be located.
#2. Community Concerns – The following concerns regarding the proposed text
amendments were voiced by the community throughout the RMF-30 engagement
process:
Demolition of Existing Housing. With any proposal that allows more housing density in an area,
there tends to be concern that existing historic and/or affordable housing will be demolished to make way
for larger more expensive housing developments. This is a legitimate concern that has been
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 13
raised by multiple community members throughout the engagement process. At the same time,
multi-family zoning districts should allow multi-family development on an average site lot. Per
current standards, close to half of the existing lots zoned RMF-30 are less than 6,000 square feet in
area and couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single dwelling unit. Close to three-quarters of
the lots are less than 8,000 square feet in area and couldn’t accommodate anything more than two
units or a duplex. As we see with historic multi-family development already in place throughout the
city, the average size lot in the RMF-30 district of 6,114 square feet can and should be able to
accommodate more than a single-family home. With all of this in mind, a delicate balance needs to
be struck between allowing more housing on adequately sized lots and promoting the preservation of
existing structures, which is what this proposal aims to achieve.
First, close to a third of lots zoned RMF-30 are located in a local historic district where demolition of
structures must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Second, lot area requirements have
been strategically reduced the most for single and two-family development (2,500 to 3,000 square-foot
reduction), as well as compatible multi-family development including cottage developments, row houses
and tiny houses (1,500 square foot reduction). Though compatible, row houses and cottage developments
must meet many other design, building code and fire code regulations. Therefore, though the lot area
requirements have been reduced the most for these forms, staff does not anticipate widespread
demolition to accommodate these forms because they are more difficult to construct. Third, lot area has
only been reduced by 500 square feet for multi-family building forms with three or more units. Not only
does this promote the smaller building forms, but the proposed 2,500 square feet per unit also remains in
line with the Central Community’s Master Plan future land use designation for Low Medium Density
Residential of 20 units per acre or 2,178 square feet of lot area per unit. Staff anticipates decreasing lot
area requirements further for the RMF-35, -45, and -75 districts as these areas area meant to
accommodate higher density.
Reducing lot area requirements also makes the proposed density bonus more functional. If an
existing lot could accommodate one more unit with the proposed changes to lot area – which is the
case of 299 lots zoned RMF-30 with single-family homes – the lot could then have two more units if
the existing structure is preserved. This incentive aligns directly with the City’s Housing Plan to “lot
subdivision where there is ample space to build an additional home on a property or alternatively
expand rental opportunities in existing structures” (p. 19). Finally, the proposed lot width
maximum was born directly out of the need to limit land banking and subsequent demolition. Based
on average lot width, this maximum would typically prevent more than three lots from being
consolidated into one, and subsequently three existing units from being demolished.
Affordable Housing Development. Questions were often asked regarding how these text
amendments work to promote affordable housing development throughout the engagement process.
These amendments do not directly facilitate affordable units per the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) standards3. However, by reducing required lot size per unit, units
3 Housing Affordability - Is the level of homeowner or rental housing prices relative to the level of household income. Housing
is considered affordable, when a household is paying no more than 30% of their total gross income towards housing expenses;
rent or mortgage and utilities. The 30% of income standard is a widely used and accepted measure of the extent of housing
affordability problems across the country. This standard applies to households of any income level.
Affordable Housing - Is government-subsidized housing for low-income households. A residential unit is generally considered
affordable if the household pays 30% or less of their total gross income towards rent, for eligible households with low, very-low and
extremely-low incomes, including low-wage working families, seniors on fixed incomes, veterans, people with disabilities
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 14
themselves might also be smaller and, in turn, more affordable. The three housing types that are
being promoted with this amendment including cottage developments, row houses and tiny
houses also tend to have smaller footprints. More than anything, these amendments are aimed
at facilitating new multi-family housing in general. A greater supply of market rate housing may
free up the number of affordable or mid-priced units for those who truly qualify for them. As the
City’s Housing Plan acknowledges, introducing flexible zoning regulations is merely a piece of
the affordable housing puzzle and the Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development has
many other programs in place that work to not only promote, but preserve affordable housing.
Preservation of Allen Park. Multiple concerns have been raised regarding the preservation
of Allen Park, which is a large 5-acre parcel located across from Westminster College at
approximately 1700 South and 1300 East and zoned RMF-30. While open space is certainly
important to preserve, the park is private property that could currently be redeveloped with
housing without the proposed text amendments. Per current standards, 72 multi-family units
could be constructed on the 5-acre lot based on lot area requirements alone. Per proposed
standards, 87 multi-family units could be constructed; though, if row house or cottage units
were to be development this allowance would increase to 145 units at 1,500 square feet per unit.
However, a large stream runs through the property that is protected by riparian corridor
regulations, which do not permit principal structures within 50 feet on either side of the
stream’s waterline. Though more units could be built under the proposed text amendments, any
future development would still be greatly limited due to these riparian regulations.
Parking Requirements. Concerns from community members regarding parking
requirements go both ways – current requirements are either too much or not enough. The East
Central Community Council in particular, where many RMF-30 parcels are located, voiced
multiple concerns regarding the lack of street parking in their neighborhoods. Because of this,
they do not believe new developments should receive parking reductions for completing
transportation demand management strategies. Others, including the Historic Landmark
Commission, expressed that if parking requirements are not reduced for multi-family housing,
missing-middle-type housing might not be feasible as there’s simply not enough space on a lot
to accommodate multiple parking stalls and multiple housing units.
Parking will not be updated as a part of this zoning text amendment; however, the parking
chapter is being updated at this time per a different text amendment. Staff will work together
closely to see how parking can be best accommodate within the city’s RMF districts.
NEXT STEPS:
Because staff does want to obtain feedback from both the Planning Commission and the public
at this time, but also acknowledges that additional fine-tuning must be done to the proposed
text amendments, it is recommended that the Planning Commission keep table petition
PLNPCM2019-00313 regarding updates to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District and make a positive or negative recommendation to City Council at a later date
once the proposed text amendments have been finalized.
and those experiencing homeless. There are different kinds of affordable units, including public housing,
voucher-subsidized units, or income restricted units.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 15
ATTACHMENT A: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 16
Proposed Changes to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Ordinance (21A.24.120)
Strike and Underline Draft – 6/26/2019
21A.24.120: RMF-30 LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District is
to provide an environment suitable for a variety of housing types of a low density nature,
including single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings, with a maximum height of thirty
feet (30'). This district is appropriate in areas where the applicable Master Plan policies
recommend multi-family housing with a density of less than fifteen (15) up to twenty (20)
dwelling units per acre. 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.
B. Uses: Uses in the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District, as specified in
section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this
title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this
chapter and this section.
C. 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, provided that all
other zoning requirements are met; and,
1. Design Standards: All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in chapter
21A.37 of this title. For buildings not located along a street, the standards applicable to street
facing facades shall be applied to the face where the primary entrance is located.
D. Lot Width Maximum: No newly created lot shall have a lot width greater than one hundred
ten feet (110’). This maximum shall be applied to the development as a whole as opposed to
the individual lots within the development.
E. Density Bonus: To encourage the preservation of neighborhood character, bonus dwelling units
may be granted when an existing principal structure is retained as part of a project that adds at
least one additional dwelling unit on the lot pursuant to the following:
1. One (1) bonus unit may be granted for retaining an existing single or two-family structure
and two (2) bonus units for retaining an existing multi-family structure.
2. Dwelling units may be added internally to the existing structure or
detached from the structure as a separate building form.
3. The addition of a bonus unit to the existing principal structure does not
change the building form of that existing structure.
4. Bonus dwelling units are not subject to minimum lot area requirements, but must comply with all
other underlying lot and bulk regulations when located outside of an existing structure.
5. Bonus units shall be exempt from accommodating off-street parking.
6. Exterior building walls of the existing principal structure shall be retained; however,
rear additions are allowed. Non-structural modifications, such as modification to
windows, doorways, the addition of dormers, and the addition of other architectural
design elements to the structure are also allowed.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 17
C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this
district are as follows:
Minimum Minimum
Land Use Lot Area Lot Width
Multi-family dwellings 9,000 square feet1 80 feet
Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and No minimum No
police and fire stations minimum
Natural open space and conservation areas, public and No minimum No
private minimum
Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 140 feet
Public pedestrian pathways, trails and greenways No minimum No
minimum
Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes No minimum No
and poles minimum
Single-family attached dwellings (3 or more)3,000 square feet Interior: 25
per unit feet
Corner: 35
feet
Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
Twin home dwelling 4,000 square feet 25 feet
per unit
Two-family dwellings 8,000 square feet 50 feet
Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 square feet 50 feet
section 21A.33.020 of this title
Qualifying provisions:
1.9,000 square foot minimum for 3 dwelling units plus 3,000 square feet for each additional
dwelling unit.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 18
F. RMF-30 Building Types and Forms
1. Single-Family Dwelling: A detached residential structure that contains one (1) dwelling unit. The
structure has an entry facing the street, a front porch or stoop, and a small front yard.
2. Two-Family Dwelling: A residential structure that contains two (2) dwelling units in a single
building. The units may be arranged side by side, up and down, or front and back. Each unit
has its own separate entry directly to the outside. Dwellings may be located on separate
lots or grouped on one lot.
3. Cottage Development: A unified development that contains two (2) or more 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.
a. Additional Development Standards for Cottage Building Forms
i.Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum
setback of eight feet (8') from another cottage.
ii.Area: No cottage shall have more than eight hundred fifty (850) square feet
of usable floor area, excluding basement area.
iii.Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or
a common open space.
iv.Open Space: A minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of common,
open space is required per cottage up to a maximum of one thousand (1,000)
square feet. At least fifty percent (50%) of the open space shall be
contiguous and include landscaping, walkways or other amenities intended to
serve the residents of the development.
b. Cottage Development Units on Individual Lots:
i.Required setbacks shall be applied to the perimeter of the cottage
development as opposed to each individual lot within the development. The
front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped
yards.
ii.Lot coverage shall be calculated for the cottage development as a whole,
as opposed to each individual lot within the development.
iii.Required off street parking for a unit within the cottage development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv.A cottage development where each cottage is on its own lot shall require final
subdivision plat approval. The final plat must document the following:
1. The new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of
easements or a shared driveway.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 19
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any common area
associated with the new lot(s) per section 21A.55.110 of this title
is submitted with the Preliminary Subdivision Plat.
4. Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common
wall with an adjacent dwelling unit. A row house contains a minimum of three (3)
residential dwelling units. Each unit may be on its own lot. If possible, off street parking is
accessed from an alley.
Side Oriented Row House:
a. Additional Development Standards for Row House Building Forms with Entrances
Oriented Towards the Side of a Lot.
i.Interior Setbacks: The interior side yard setbacks (S) shall be ten feet (10’)
on one side and six feet (6’) on the other.
ii.Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a street shall have its
primary entrance on the façade of the building parallel to the street
with an entry feature per section 21A.37 of this title.
iii.Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade facing the
front yard area.
iv.Delineation: Each dwelling unit shall be delineated as an individual unit
through the use of color, materials, articulation of building walls,
articulation in building height, lighting, and/or other architectural elements.
v.Required Glass: For all floors or levels above the ground floor, a minimum of
twenty percent (20%) of all street facing facades must be glass. Interior
building facades shall also have a minimum of fifteen (15%) ground floor
glass and fifteen (15%) upper floor glass.
b. Side Oriented Row House Units on Individual Lots:
i.Required setbacks shall be applied to the perimeter of the row house
development as opposed to each individual lot within the development. The
front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as landscaped
yards.
ii.Lot coverage shall be calculated for the row house development as a
whole, as opposed to each individual lot within the development.
iii.Required off street parking for a unit within the row house development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv.A row house development where each unit is on its own lot shall require
final subdivision plat approval. The final plat must document the following:
1. The new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of
easements or a shared driveway.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 20
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any common area
associated with the new lot(s) per section 21A.55.110 of this title
is submitted with the Preliminary Subdivision Plat.
Required Setbacks for Street (Normal) Oriented Row House
Required Setbacks for Side Oriented Row House
5. Multi-Family Residential: A multi-family residential structure containing three (3) or
more dwelling units that may be arranged in a number of configurations.
6. Tiny House: A detached residential structure that contains one (1) dwelling unit with a
permanent foundation that is 400 square feet or less in usable floor area excluding lofted
space. The structure has a single entry facing the street, an alley or open space on a lot, but
shall not face an interior property line.
a. Additional Development Standards for Tiny House Forms:
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 21
i.Balconies and Decks: Balconies and decks shall not exceed eighty (80)
square feet in size when located above the ground level of the buildings
and shall be located a minimum of ten feet (10') from a side or rear yard lot
line unless the applicable side or rear yard lot line is adjacent to an alley.
ii.Rooftop Decks: Rooftop decks on tiny houses are prohibited.
iii.Parking: A tiny house shall require one (1) off street parking space per unit.
7. Non Residential Building: A building that houses a non-residential use either permitted or
permitted as a conditional use in the underlying zoning district.
D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty
feet (30').
E. Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front Yard: Twenty feet (20').
2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10').
3. Interior Side Yard:
a. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings:
(1) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other.
(2) Corner lots: Four feet (4').
b. Single-family attached: No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be less than
four feet (4').
c. Twin home dwelling: No yard is required along one side lot line. A ten foot (10') yard is required
on the other.
d. Multi-family dwelling: Ten feet (10') on each side.
e. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side.
4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need
not exceed twenty five feet (25').
5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in
a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required
Yards", of this title.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 22
F. Required Landscape Yards: The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as
landscape yards.
G. Maximum Building Coverage:
1. Single-Family Detached: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not
exceed forty five percent (45%) of the lot area.
2. Single-Family Attached Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings
shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
3. Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory
buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
4. Multi-Family Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not
exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area.
5. Existing Dwellings: For dwellings existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of such existing buildings
shall be considered legally conforming.
6. Nonresidential Land Uses: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall
not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
H. Landscape Buffers: For multiple-family uses where a lot abuts a lot in a single-family or two-family
residential district, a landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21A.48
of this title.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 23
G. Building Form Standards: Building form standards are listed in table 21A.24.120.H of this section.
Table 21A.24.120.H
RMF-30 Building Form Standards
Building Form
Single-Two-Multi-Row Cottage Tiny NonBuildingFamilyFamilyFamilyHouse1Development1House1Residential
Regulation Dwelling Dwelling Residential Building
Building height
and placement:
H Height 30’17’30’
F Front yard 20’
setback
C Corner side 10’
yard
setback
S Interior side 4’ on one side 10’4’10’
yard 10’ on the other
setback
R Rear yard Minimum of 20% lot depth up to 25'10’Minimum of
20% lot
depth up to
25'
L Minimum lot 2,500 sq. ft.1,500 sq. ft.5,000 sq. ft.
size
BC Maximum 50%
Building
Coverage
LY Required The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards.
Landscaped
Yards
LB Landscape X X X
Buffers per
subsection
21A.48.080C
of this title.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 24
G Attached
Garages
Garage doors accessed from the front or corner side yard shall be no wider than
50% of the front facade of the structure and set back at least 5' from the street
facing building facade and at least 20' from the property line. Side loaded garages
are permitted.
DS Design All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in chapter 21A.37 of
Standards this title.
Notes:
1. See subsection 21A.24.120F of this title for additional standards
I. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be
located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In
Required Yards", of this title.
(Ord. 66-13, 2013: Ord. 12-11, 2011: Ord. 62-09 §§ 5, 8, 2009: Ord. 61-09 § 6, 2009: Ord. 88-95 § 1
(Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(12-11), 1995)
Chapter 21A.37 DESIGN STANDARDS
21A.37.050: DESIGN STANDARDS DEFINED:
The design standards in this chapter are defined as follows. Each design standard includes a
specific definition of the standard and may include a graphic that is intended to help further
explain the standard, however the definition supersedes any conflict between it and a graphic.
P. Entry Features in the RMF Districts: At least one operable building entrance with one or more
permitted entry features and a walkway connected to a public sidewalk is required on every street
facing façade. Where an entry does not face a street, All entry features shall also include exterior
lighting to highlight the entrance. Row house and cottage development building forms shall have at
least one entrance with an entry feature on each unit.
1. Encroachments: A permitted entry feature may encroach up to five feet (5') into a required
yard.
2. Permitted Entry Features:
a. Covered Porch – A covered, raised porch structure with or without
railings spanning at least a third the length of the front building façade.
b. Portico – A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported
by columns or enclosed by walls over a stoop or walkway.
c. Awning or Canopy – A hood or cover suspended above the building entry over
a stoop or walkway where the wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by
at least one foot (1’) from the front building plane.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 25
d. Emphasized Doorway – A doorway that is recessed by at least one foot (1’)
from the front building plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a
different material than the front façade, differentiated patterns or brickwork around
the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need not be recessed more than six inches
(6’’) on a tiny house.
21A.37.060: DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT:
This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a
box is checked, that standard is required. If a box is not checked, it is not required. If a specific
dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the definition, it
will be indicated within the box. In cases when a dimension in this table conflicts with a dimension in
the definition, the dimensions listed in the table supersede those in the definition.
TABLE 21A.37.060
A. Residential districts:
Standard
(Code Section)
Ground floor use (%)
(21A.37.050A1)
District
R-R-
RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
75 75
Ground floor use +
visual interest (%)
(21A.37.050A2)
Building materials:50 80 80
ground floor (%)
(21A.37.050B1)
Building materials:50
upper floors (%)
(21A.37.050B2)
Glass: ground floor 20 60 60 40
(%) (21A.37.050C1)
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 26
District
R-R-
Standard RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
(Code Section)30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
Glass: upper floors 15
(%) (21A.37.050C2)
Building entrances (feet)X 75 75 X
(21A.37.050D)
Blank wall: maximum 15 15 15 15
length (feet)
(21A.37.050E)
Street facing facade:
maximum length (feet)
(21A.37.050F)
Upper floor step back 10
(feet) (21A.37.050G)
Lighting: exterior
(21A.37.050H)
Lighting: parking lot X X
(21A.37.050I)
Screening of X X X X
mechanical equipment
(21A.37.050J)
Screening of service X X X X
areas (21A.37.050K)
Ground floor residential
entrances
(21A.37.050L)
Parking garages or
structures
(21A.37.050M)
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 27
District
R-R-
Standard RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
(Code Section)30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
Residential character in X
RB District
(21A.37.050N)
Entry Features in the X
RMF Districts
(21A.37.050P)
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 28
ATTACHMENT B: INFORMATIONAL MAPS
1.RMF-30 Zoning Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 29
2. All Multi-Family Residential (RMF) Zoning Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 30
3. RMF-30 Zones in Local Historic Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 31
4. Building Morphology in RMF-30 Areas
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 32
5. Unit Eligibility Maps
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 33
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 34
6. Multi-Family Zoning Requirements Across the U.S.
MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DENSITY (sq. ft. per unit or dwellingCITYPOPULATION LOT WIDTH HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)DISTRICT unit/acre)
San Antonio, TX 1.5 million MF-18 (Limited Density)18 du/acre 50 35 --
MF-25 (Low Density)25 du/acre 50 35 --
San Diego, CA 1.4 million RM-1-1/2/3 (Lower Density)3,000/2,500/2,000 50 30 -0.75/0.9/1.05
RM-2-4/5/6 (Medium Density)1,750/1,500/1,250 50 40 -1.2/1.35/1.5
Austin, TX 950,000 MF-1 (Limited Density)17 du/acre 50 40 45%-
MF-2 (Low Density)23 du/acre 50 40 50%-
Jacksonville, FL 892,000 RMD-B/C/D (Medium Density)4,400/2,900/2,100 60 45 50%-
Columbus, OH 879,000 R-4 2,500 50 35 --
Fort Worth, TX 874,000 CR (Low Density)16 du/acre -36 40%-
C (Medium Density)24 du/acre -36 55%-
Seattle, WA 725,000 LR1/2/3 (Lowrise)2,200-no min (based on use)-40-18 (by use /location)-0.9-2.0 (based on use and location)
Denver, CO 705,000 E-RH-2.5 (Urban Edge Rowhouse)max 10 du / min lot 6,000 50 30 37.50%-
E-MU-2.5 (Urban Edge)-50 30 37.50%-
U-RH-2.5 (Urban Rowhouse)max 10 du / min lot 6,000 50 35 --
G-RH-3 (General Urban Rowhouse)-50 30 --
G-MU-3 (General Urban)-50 40 --
Washington, DC 694,000 RA-1 (Apartment Low to Moderate --40 40%0.9
Boston, MA 685,000 H-1-40 (Apartment)1,500 -40 -1.0
El Paso, TX 684,000 A-1/2 (Apartment)2,400/1,750 60/50 35 50%-
Nashville, TN 668,000 R15/20 15/20 du/acre (1,800/1,500 RH)40 20/30 (3 stories RH)-IRS 0.7
Portland, OR 648,000 R2/3 (Low Density)14.5 (21 w/ bonus)/21.8 (32 w/ bonus)-35/40 45%/50%
Oklahoma City, OK 644,000 R-3M (Medium Multi-Family)2,200 100 35 -
Lousiville, KY 621,000 R-5A/6 12.01/17.42 35 45 -0.5/0.75
Milwaukee, WI 595,000 RM1/2/3 2,400/1,200 40 (25 RH)/30 (18 45 50%
Albuquerque, NM 558,000 R-2 30 du/acre 60 26 0.5
Tuscon, AR 536,000 R-2/3 15/36 du/acre -25/40 75%/70%-
Fresno, CA 527,000 RM-1 12-16 du/acre -40 50%-
Sacramento, CA 502,000 R-2A/2B/3 17/27/30 du/acre 20 35 50%
Mesa, AZ 496,000 RM-2/3/4 15/20/30 du/acre 36 30/40 45%/50%-
Kansas City, MO 489,000 R-2.5/1.5 2,500/1,500 40/30 40/45 --
Omaha, NE 467,000 R-WRN (Walkable Residential)2,500 50 35 --
R-6 (Low-Density)2,000 50 45 50%0.5
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 35
ATTACHMENT C: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
As per section 21A.50.050, a decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by
general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is
not controlled by any one standard.
Factor Finding Rationale
1. Whether a proposed Complies As outlined above in the ‘Key
text amendment is Considerations’ section, the
consistent with the proposed text amendments
purposes, goals,support multiple principles and
objectives, and initiatives of Plan Salt Lake (2015).
policies of the city as
stated through its In addition, these amendments
various adopted were born from the immediate
planning documents;need to implement the recently-
adopted Growing SLC housing
plan.
Staff finds that the proposed text
amendments are consistent with
City purposes, goals, and policies.
2. Whether a Complies The proposed text amendments
proposed text advance the purpose and intent
amendment furthers of the Zoning Ordinance,
the specific purpose specifically the following:
statements of the
zoning ordinance;..to promote the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the
present and future inhabitants
of Salt Lake City, to implement
the adopted plans of the city…
This title is, in addition,
intended to:
C. Provide adequate light and
air;
D. Classify land uses and
distribute land development and
utilization;
G. Foster the city’s industrial,
business and residential
development.
The proposed amendments
further the purpose and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance by
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 36
allowing/fostering well-designed
multi-family residential building
forms on adequately sized lots in
the city.
3. Whether a proposed text Complies The proposed zoning standards
amendment is consistent are in line with development
with the purposes and principals within the local historic
provisions of any applicable overlay, especially in terms of
overlay zoning districts compatible development.
which may impose Mechanisms are also being
additional standards;proposed to limit demolition of
existing structures outside of the
local historic overlays.
4. The extent to which a Complies The proposed text amendments
proposed text amendment directly support the Growing SLC
implements best current,housing plan, which is a forward-
thinking document when it comes toprofessional practices of addressing affordable housing for allurban planning and design.residents, now and into the future as
the City continues to grow.
The amendments propose to use
elements of a form based code, which
has proven success in fostering well-
designed, pedestrian-friendly
communities across the nation.
Additionally, the American Planning
Association (APA) recently published
a Housing Policy Guide on June 4,
2019. The APA advocates for public
policies that create just, healthy, and
prosperous communities that expand
opportunity for all through good
planning and their advocacy is based
on adopted positions and principles
contained in policy guides. Position 1
within the Housing Policy Guide
aligns directly with the proposed text
amendments as follows:
POSITION 1 – Modernize state and local laws to ensure housing opportunities
are available, accessible, and affordable to all.
Position 1B – The American Planning Association and its Chapters and Divisions support the
modernization of local zoning bylaws and ordinances to increase housing production, while
taking local context and conditions into account. While challenging to confront and, ultimately,
amend or dismantle exclusionary zoning, rules, and practices, planners must take the lead in
modernizing zoning. Local jurisdictions should adopt bylaws or ordinances, policies,
and incentives that facilitate a range of housing types and densities and that serve a
diversity of housing needs. Local jurisdictions should review and modernize bylaws
and ordinances and planners need resources to make updates happen and to ensure
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 37
adequate public engagement occurs. Updates to bylaws and ordinances should
address mixed use and multifamily development, including affordability.
Updates should also include rezoning for higher densities where there may be
existing lower densities. Local jurisdictions should consider reducing or
eliminating minimum lot size requirements, reducing minimum dwelling unit
requirements, allowing greater height and density and reducing or eliminating
off-street minimum parking requirements, and they should specifically identify and
eliminate or minimize regulatory obstacles to the establishment of accessory dwelling units,
whether attached to or detached from the principal dwelling unit. Local jurisdictions should
also allow for and encourage adaptive reuse and use conversions to encourage housing
production. Local jurisdictions should also research and analyze, and as part of any zoning
amendment, preempt all restrictive covenants and barriers to fair housing and access to
housing choice, including barriers to on-street, overnight parking.
Location should be addressed without compromising equity or resiliency. Local jurisdictions
should consider incorporating into bylaws and ordinances transit-oriented development principles
and principles that address the importance of housing location in relation to access and proximity
to schools, jobs, parks, transportation, and other critical amenities and resources. States should
consider moving to a Housing + Transportation Index when determining affordability.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 38
ATTACHMENT D: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Notice to Community/Neighborhood Councils:
Recognized community-based organizations that contain land zoned RMF-30 were notified of
the proposed text amendments via email on February 13, 2019. Upon their request, the changes
were presented at the Sugar House Land Use Committee’s March 18th meeting, the East Central
Community Council’s March 21st meeting and the Central City Community Council’s April 3rd
meeting. No other councils requested a presentation. Formal comments received from the
council chairs have been attached.
Open House:
All recognized community-based organizations were also notified of the proposed text
amendments via Open House notices sent on February 14th, 2019. Because these zoning text
amendments impact the different areas of the city and not one specific Community or
Neighborhood Council, an Open House was held on February 26th, 2019 at the Salt Lake City’s
downtown public library. All written comments received have been attached.
Focus Group: A focus group with local professionals who have worked in RMF-30 areas previously
was held on April 2, 2019. Many felt that the proposed design standards would drive up the cost of
units as things like durable building materials and glass drive up the cost of construction. In general,
the more requirements and processes the higher the cost of their units – costs get transferred to the
buyer or renter. They also suggested clarifying some of the design standards. At times they can be
vague and it’s unclear if a certain design or material would qualify.
In terms of the proposed unit bonus, some were enthusiastic about working with existing
structures while others only work with new construction. The restoration of existing units can
also be expensive and drive up costs. It is, however, more profitable to build/restore smaller
units. Most were on board with all of the new proposed building forms, especially tiny homes.
Parking and fire regulations are two things that could stop this kind of infill development. They
suggested reduced parking requirements for preserving a unit and reduced parking in general.
Planning Commission Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites on
June 14th, 2019.
Newspaper notice ran on June 15th, 2019.
Public Input:
Throughout the engagement process, there has been general public input both in favor and
against the proposed text amendments. Community concerns that were heard the most have
been described under the Key Considerations section of this report. Formal comments
submitted by community members have been included as a part of this attachment below.
Commission Briefings:
The following points and recommendations were made during briefings with the Planning
Commission and Historic Landmark Commission where they were asked for their direct
feedback on the proposed changes.
PC Briefing – December 12, 2018
Second-floor balconies may not an appropriate design requirement in low density
residential zoning districts like RMF-30
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 39
Requiring certain building forms and design standards may counteract the a goal of
facilitating affordable housing – may be too restrictive
The 20% glass requirements on front facades may be too
high Cottage units may be limited further in size
General interest in allowing tiny house building forms on smaller size lots
Should somehow mitigate the impact of long interior walls of side oriented row houses –
interior walls are also very visible from the public way
Not confident in allowing side oriented row houses per more design guidelines and
administrative review alone because design is objective and these forms may need a
closer level Commission review
Re-review minimum lot width requirements
Re-review standards for creating lots without public streets frontage
Access easements for lots without public street frontage should be recorded on the
plat Suggested looking into decreasing lot area requirements for multi-family uses
Suggested having different standards for lots abutting single-family zoning
districts rezone certain areas to be more or less dense
Over time, Central City might all be up-zoned
Other zoning standards could be relaxed when buildings are preserved – amount of
vegetation in the park strip could be relaxed
HLC Briefing – May 2, 2019
Two parking spaces per unit is too high for cottage developments
Parking can drive an entire development – on the cusp of radical change in terms of
living preferences and parking
May utilize a shared parking arrangement in between buildings on a site
EIFS isn’t always a bad material – can be getting into the minutia by regulating
EIFS Stucco, Hardie plank, Hardie lap and any cementitious siding can work well
Existing building envelopes, especially in terms of scale and form, should be
maintained Side oriented row houses can have a negative impact on adjacent neighbors
New driveways too close to property lines can have negative impact on historic homes
Side oriented row houses should have smaller side yard setbacks than 10’ and 10’
Generally in favor of tiny house forms
Unit bonus shouldn’t create an explosion of housing as some might think
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 40
March 25, 2019
TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM: Judi Short, Land Use Chair, Sugar House Community Council
RE: RMF 30 Zoning Update
We have reviewed this proposal at our LUZ meeting on March 18, and I also sent it out to the trustees on our council who
live in affected neighborhoods. I got a few comments back. One said, “Judi, I’ve been talking to folks and attended the
open house tonight. I’m not sure this is a huge deal for people in my neighborhood. Many of the people I spoke to seem
to be okay with it. I’ll keep trying to get a feel for the neighbors’ sentiment. Thanks.” The other told me that she had
talked to a number of the people in the area who seemed to feel like these were welcome changes. She was referring to
the areas along 700 East on both sides, and 900 East on the West side.
The committee members discussed through the month the 700 East and 900 East locations. We seemed to feel that
these were mostly large and deep lots that could stand to be renovated. The parcels that have been already upgraded
were welcomed. We don’t like the “shipping container” look, and feel that more care can be taken to design something
attractive. Even though these are heavily trafficked streets, that doesn’t give a builder license to build the cheapest
project and charge the highest price the market will bear.
There are other areas in Sugar House where we did not feel any changes would be coming for many years. They were the
Graystone Condos, built in 1960, and the condos all along Elizabeth Street built in 1971, as well as the Forest Glen Condos
along the freeway, built in about 1978. I have been in a number of those units, and walked through these developments.
Each unit is owner occupied, and very well maintained. Even though these are older buildings, no one seemed to feel like
they were at risk of being redeveloped in the next 20 years. And, if we look at the layout of these, they are very close
together, three stories. The only thing that might be worrisome is this ordinance would allow buildings closer together.
That might eliminate some of the green space. These have very formidable condominium associations, and I think that
would be difficult to change. No one could imagine taking one of the buildings down and building something different.
The last parcel I want to bring your attention to is Allen Park, located across from Westminster College along 1300 East.
This is an 8 acre parcel, built in the 1930’s by Dr. George Allen, who collected birds, and later donated them to form what
is now Tracy Aviary. And, it has a big riparian corridor right through the middle of it, which identifies a big, no-build zone.
The existing buildings are historic, but certainly not up to code. A few are probably worth saving and restoring, especially
the log home. This parcel needs to be removed from consideration. By definition, you can’t leave space for the riparian
corridor and still cram in a ton of new housing at the density this projected code change would encourage. This needs
some thoughtful historic preservation, to maintain the ambiance (without rats and peacocks), and with careful design,
could add a number of very large, high-end homes that could be a real asset to the city, and Sugar House. Figure out a
way to remove Allen Park from this plan. The litigation over this parcel could go on for years, but it needs to be protected
now.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 41
OPEN HOUSE
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
February 26, 2019
Planning Division
Department of
Community and
Neighborhoods
RMF-30 Text Amendment
Name:C\enn¥ �1ae�
Address:
�l,/4-'
Phone: ________E-mail
Comments:/ � WOti fd (.ti£ /k: C.iy Jo <!tm J /cle,,
Sfa-�"ad /J:fterPJ--1-- ��-I- fie ±!}, y hoi,,_¥S
� o«:.Q(Gr-c/q h k & d CPI: en v, v-a fl,,.£Jn+-r I Iv
{}kflJA;If- -hh y hofl.us 4,-e �-q_/t_cf t;h �
aJ SJ.YlW-�y I �_.c:s u.!_IZ!_ q/V'f:<(S ¥e<
{(J -
ro �< m,� ,sf UJ?re qooka,e M � PtZ �C.
&f prD-/it .Tin;ko¼Jes 3/1 faAf'i 'frmXfW
cv,,cJ_� · e -CffA.. -Ye rS-e!u.S> 1;;, �+--r�
Please provide your contact information so we can notify you of other me tings or he · gs on this
issue. You may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your
comments via e-mail at lauren .parisi@slcgov .com or via mail at the following address: Lauren
Parisi, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 42
Name:
OPEN HOUSE
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
February 26, 2019
Planning Division
Department of Community and
Neighborhoods
F-30 Text Amendment
'(�MtA�ltSCO
Address:
Phone:
-
-------
---:l'-
E m
Comments:
�Jo-es /(Jo-I-
/JV'OV(
-+.QAA 0-«i-J /4 tAJ ��V9
VO e C w �VQ,
o<J sc·� +,7arkAJt
tU i{ s I ;t; tJ /2 a �{).y
..uev,clJ;-e..rr
✓� ;c/4 ,
1
Please provide your1contact infonnation so we can notify you of other meetings or hearings on
this issue. You may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide
your comments via e-mail at lauren.paiisi@s lcgov.com or via mail at the following address:
Lauren Parisi, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 43
OPEN HOUSE
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
February 26, 2019
Planning Division
Department of Community and
NeighborhoodsRMF-30 Text Amendment
�b �C{W_ (00 ( '2t/}1xz£ C ,ft [ vfNtVV\V 'Ill f-/ (CU'll{ I)Name:
ClNC\J�- cv-�
Address:
Phone:
______________-
Zip Code ___ Email \
UJ�\\ s·� "1) ±\f v/2:\:) (fur S� li� Ct2�)J b<__
Comments:
(M<D12 \w V>lf .a"" ttD:b1 ? &.. )\f\A,), ) Cb b.-0 ,(-.t4 �
11,cc�� S��A=h.0Y\PO � We ��f 9.e4t-� c\.lU!n,
c\c) \)AQ t?Lil t)Gfef'.Y:l °'l,ev�l� u:r � S"-t@(.µ.[\ W]
��R hM�tt� vn ((Y->\0-.5¼ c;{/ JlrA') =t:f so I � w � L\ � s
ow:�"'-\Y�
Please provide your contact infonnation so we can notify you of other meetings or hearings on this
issue. You may submit this. sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your
comments via e-mail at lauren.parisi@slcgov.com or via mail at the following address: Lauren
Parisi, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 44
OPEN HOUSE
PUBLIC COMMENT FORM
February 26, 2019
RMF-30 Text Amendment
Name:c:=-�S�L �::c
Address:
ip Code
________________Z __________
Phone:
Comments:
0
�S?c:n--�-�'C"--.�
�'C>....:::�� c_c,d.c._�"::::,C\..Q�'-.--::C2.d-� � �o...C-�c._c.._\.
c
0
s
'1'!'-,C-.;-g__S) I &.a...�s;:,� e"� 'm_ S� ��\�,
Please provide your contact infonnation so we can notify you of other meetings or hearings on this
issue. You may submit this sheet before the end of the Open House, or you can provide your
comments via e-mail at lauren.parisi@slcgov.com or via mail at the following address: Lauren
Parisi, Salt Lake City Planning Division, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480.
� Q...���• <2'-� a_ ���o.c '-.:- /\-cf:»S"-�\.-;,--
-...J..._��.
��>
�
0PLNPCM2019-00313
err'\Page 45
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 46
-...•:\
fVo b "'"\co r-e,r_,wr-er1=+1\/Mtlird- f\6t-Mo,.,iuh b(oe,t "'-'4
-P
�v0�S C: lv:yjt-•1-er �
1
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 47
Ian Kaplan via email – 2/14/2019
I had time over the break to review the proposed changes to the RMF zone and have some feedback for
you from the architecture/development side. I will be present at the public hearings to voice these
matters, but thought it could be of potential use as the document changes prior to public comment.
1. Parking Reductions for Bonus Units/Row-houses. There is no mention of this - but in order to
actually accomplish the density you're looking for in the tight lots there needs to be a 1
Stall/Unit regardless of bed count. Many historic examples of cottage style development don't
have parking at all and it's the only way they work on tight lots. The proximity to transit helps,
but anything outside of transit will be undevelopable.
2. Parking Reductions for preserving existing structures. It's often very difficult to provide additional
parking for increased density if preserving the existing structure is a priority. This is where most
infill projects hit a road block. Especially if they do not have an Alleyway for access.
3. Tandem Parking Regulations. For lots with access to an alley (and without) - tandem parking can
be a great way to increase density and provide additional parking for 2+ bedroom units. It gives
the designer a lot more flexibility in site layout.
4. Side Yard Setbacks for Rowhouses. More than half of the RMF-30 lots are between 31-50' wide.
With a required side yard setback of 10' for rowhouses, that leave's 30' width for a building.
However, take into account a 24' backup for a car coming out of a garage and add that to the 10'
setback, and now you only have room for a 16' deep garage stall. That makes more than half of
these lots un-developable for the rowhouse. I would suggest a wedding cake setback above 1st
story leaving 3' req'd setbacks on the ground floor and 5-8' above that. It would provide
opportunity for more diversified building designs instead of a second story cantilever over the
garage.
5. Rear yard Setbacks for Cottage Style. The historic cottage style developments typically had two
units at the back of the property with front doors turned and oriented to the street. With a 20'
setback, you are essentially losing the potential for 2 units in the rear of the property. I believe it
would be easier to achieve the desired density of these lots if the rear yard setback was reduced
to 10' for cottage style developments.
6. Building Coverage. 50% is very limiting, and will create major difficulty in achieving the desired
density on a majority of these lots. Can you eliminate private garages counting towards lot
coverage? Is there a way to offset the max. building coverage by subtracting private balconies,
or rooftop patio's from the lot coverage? Or can there be an exception for lots that maintain the
existing structure in place?
7. Administrative review of existing non-conforming structures when adding density. Not sure how
this is covered... but it is a concern of mine when trying to maintain existing structures on a
property that may be non-conforming to new setback regulations.
8. Minimum Lot widths - Could there be an exception to the 50' req'd min. lot width for existing
parcels? Per Planning Commission review or something... This is becoming a huge barrier to me
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 48
for infill development. I currently have two projects that are exactly 49.5' wide and it is bringing
both of them to a grinding halt.
Lynn K. Pershing via email – 2/27/2019
I wasn’t able to attend the open house on RMF-30 zoning changes last night. I want to express my
deep concern about the RMF-30 zoning change in historic neighborhoods, which include Local historic
districts in our City.
I do NOT support the proposed zoning changes in historic neighborhoods, both LHD, CCD and those
listed on the National Register Of Historic Places.
Obtaining Approval of an LHD is a tortuous, extended process. The main purpose of obtaining an LHD is
the City’s promise to minimize demolitions of contributing structures and in those areas.
Now The City wants to approve SFD demolitions in historic districts? This will be viewed as City
hypocrisy. Trust in government will be further eroded and will be deserved. LHD and Character
Conservation Districts zoning are in grave danger. They should be considered sacrosanct.
My recent review of demolitions of SFD housing in our City in 2018 shows that the vast majority of
demolitions have occurred in 84102 (Bryant (6) and Bennion-Douglas)8)) and 84108 portion Yalecrest
(8), both neighborhoods listed on the National Register Of Historic Places. I acknowledge, much to
my dismay, that these areas have NO City nor state protections against demolitions-an oversight of
great proportions that will end the existence of the very SOUL of our City.
Allowing RMF-30-like zoning in historic areas has occurred before that you and others creating this
zoning change are likely probably too young to have witnessed. In the 1960-70s, historically
contributing, architectural significant SFD were demolished to create non compatible apt buildings in
the lower Avenues that destroyed the historic environs, neighborhood identity and cohesion. Real
estate prices in that area have not recovered to date. The current proposed zoning changes requested
will support HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF in our remaining historic districts
I strongly urge you to reconsider this zoning change in historic neighborhoods. The claim of “compatible
structures” is not viable, as the City has NO definition of “compatibility” in any ordinance (previous
discussion with Planning, CAN, Mayor Office). Further, ONLY LHD and CCD have design guidelines
concerning “compatibility”.
I conclude, therefore, that the claims of ensuring “compatibility” misrepresents and offers false intent of
achieving or enforcing any “compatibility” in future developments.
Please. Stop the destruction of the SOUL of this City. Historic neighborhoods tell the stories and
celebrate the greatness of our City and State. Housing for a diverse City requires a diversity of housing
options. SFD in desirable historic areas offer choices to many families who wish to locate into the
urban environs in safe, desirable neighborhoods with good public schools.
Short term gains to fulfill “affordable housing” needs with long term permanent losses to the City
constitutes a grave irreversible loss to our very identity and viable family housing.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 49
Kirk Huffaker (Executive Director, Preservation Utah) – March 30, 2019
While I provided some comments to you and other staff at the open house, I wanted to follow that up
with a brief message that particularly identifies Allen Park in Sugar House's Westminster Heights
neighborhood as a sensitive site that should be removed form consideration of rezoning.
Allen Park is a site or unique are remarkable historic, architectural, and artistic significance that is
located along a designated riparian corridor. I believe the site was zoned RMF-30 prior to the
designation of the riparian corridor, and was not appropriately considered at that time for rezoning that
would allow the riparian protections to take precedence. I believe this is the opportunity or the
Planning Commission to correct this conflict.
Thank you for your consideration.
Esther Hunter via email (East Central City Chair) – April 2, 2019
Thank you for coming out to the meeting. This community is pretty versed in land use and in
between the varied comments I hope you saw the key points we were trying to make.
1. The ECC has zoning on many lots that is incorrect and should have been dealt with years and years
ago that has nothing to do with the changes you are making to the specific zones. This is not your issue
nor can we fix the past. However, this may cause significant damage to some of this area. This has
nothing to do with the changes you are making within the specific zone and everything to do with the
zone on various properties. This is not a new issue. We have been saying this for years and attempted to
make corrections caused by our long ago council person since this could have all been addressed
seamlessly years ago.
Since so many people are new to various commissions and staff we tend to repeat ourselves in every
letter we write and every statement we make. Speaking of, would you please let me know the names of
the two folks who came with you and their positions? I appreciated how you took the feedback and
basically said we will take this feedback back. This is the most helpful response.
2. The ECC is not opposed to development. We welcome all types of infill and redevelopment but do
feel it needs to be thoughtfully placed so that we do not lose the very precious organically grown
community that has developed. It is a jewel in its charm, types of residential options available that allow
aging in place as well as proximity to so many beneficial features from senior services, schools, transit to
shopping to employment. It is rarity not only in this city/state but across the county. This is why the bad
zoning is so frustrating in that the zoning should be protecting the right things and informing the
development community where they should focus.
3. The point that Jen made related to affordable housing is a key one. While this is not your key focus,
we are hoping you can help carry the message. I know this is beyond the immediate challenge you
have been given and the effort the Planning Division will be doing based on the recommendations
from the housing plan for all the RMF zones. Most people are repeating the words missing middle. In
the ECC we are concerned about the missing middle but also very concerned about workforce housing
and affordable housing. In our area it is the workforce housing and affordable housing that tends to be
targeted by development. The replacements we have seen shift to market rate housing displacing a
great many in our community. It is heart wrenching to look into the eyes of community members who
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 50
have lived in our area for 25-30 years, now much more senior, dependent on the services and the
transportation offered in our area that have been literally been given 30 days or less to vacate and
now can not find any housing options in the area.
Many in the audience last night in their day jobs are expert professionals in their field. Taylor that spoke
up related to the ability to build in the new zone so that it can be either affordable or workforce housing
is not probable is such an expert. This is true certainly not for a family vs simply a boarding house or
small studio more likely for a student population. My suggestion on this front is that maybe a small
working group that could give feedback much like you are assembling the development/architectural
folks like Ian could provide some feedback that could help.
4. It's all a delicate balance. Way beyond the scope of what you are working on is the viability of the city
financially which is a very complicated issue that includes dependence on building permit fees. It would
be well if that state as a whole would do better to allow support for the extra wear and tear on
everything from our infrastructure to services as our city doubles in size everyday but barring that while
the city survives day to day we need to make sure we don't erode the wrong things, key areas of
neighborhood being part of that concern.
Yda Smith via email – April 19, 2019
I am a resident in Sugar House and am hoping to be involved in the future of Allen Park it terms of
advocating for the preservation of the open space, the trees, some of the historic features of the space
and even the peacocks, if possible. I know that there are legal issues in terms of who the current owner
is but in the meantime there are several of us in the area who are getting organized to see if we can start
to move forward with possible options for preserving the beauty of the place and not let it turn into a
dreadful housing development with the loss of all the trees, birds, peace and quiet, etc. For example, if
the Aviary and/or Preservation Utah were involved in creating a public space it would greatly enhance the
quality of life in the area with walking space among the trees and along the stream, space for bicycle
riders, and information about the history of the Allen family, and possible exotic birds to enjoy that
extend the tradition of the family. The land has a significant legacy with the history of Dr. Allen and the
contributions he made to this area including to the Aviary and the Zoo.
I can understand the desire to change zoning in the areas on the map for possible rezoning of RMF-30 to
create more affordable, smaller unit housing. I can see that Allen Park is marked as one of these areas
as well. I would like to state my opinion that Allen Park should not be a part of this process and should
be exempt from any changes that would increase the options for building new homes at this time. If
there are any meetings associated with this I would like to know about them and attend.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to getting more involved in the future plans for this city
and to get my neighbors more involved as well.
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 51
ATTACHMENT E: CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The following comments were received from other City divisions/departments with regard to
the proposed text amendments:
Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND):
Housing Plan:
Thank you for citing the Housing Plan (you listed the plans dates as 2017-
2021, but is actually 2018-2022), “all residents of SLC, current and
prospective, regardless of race, age, economic status, or physical ability can
find a place to call home.” But I think it would be better to note the following
Goals and Objectives of the plan that align with this proposal:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity
housing market.
o Objective 1. Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect
the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
o Objective 2. Remove impediments in City processes to encourage
housing development.
o Objective 3. Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.
Additionally, you can cite the Council’s 20 Guiding Principles on Housing
Development, adopted in 2017. Below are three that align with this proposal:
6. Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: i. Avoiding displacement of
existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and ii. Retaining and expanding the
diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
8. Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes.
16. Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including housing
types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as family housing in the
downtown area, innovative housing types, missing middle housing and middle- to low-
income apartments.
In summaries and the proposal, I would highlight the standout items/take
aways (which are great):
Missing middle is not a new type of housing, in fact SLC used to do this very well if you
look at the Avenues and Sugarhouse.
Most of RMF-30 is well under density that the master plan calls for.
By updating these standards, the city hopes to remove some of the zoning barriers that
limit new housing developments, while encouraging compatible design and maintain
existing housing stock.
The city’s deeper lots tend to have a significant amount of underutilize land.
Requiring larger lot areas for these types of housing somewhat force developers to
building larger units that are less affordable.
May encourage more affordable units with smaller footprints.
Other thoughts:
Do you have any direct positive feedback or input from developers that you can cite?
When mentioning “affordable,” it’s helpful to clarify that “they would be more affordable as
homeowner or rental units due to a smaller interior square footage and lot size, and/or
shared common spaces and amenities, similar to Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing.”
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 52
Fire (Ted Itchon): Thanks for the information, I like to give some input on the above
caption. First is thank you for the height requirement. That requirement keeps the
customer from providing aerial apparatus roads for their developments. Looking at the
Cottage Developments and the Side Oriented Row Homes may be a little more tricky.
Because if there are more than 2 residences on a single parcel then there is a Fire Code
requirement that we have to apply which is called access.
Engineering: No comments.
Public Utilities:
Public Utilities has just a few concerns and recommendations for the text
amendment. Water and sewer service is required for each lot. Two buildings on the
same lot will be required to use a single water service and each building with street
frontage should have its own sewer lateral.
Water and sewer services must have 10 feet of horizontal separation. This
should be considered for the lot width reduction and lot size reduction.
Lots without street frontage will require an easement from the neighboring lot for
water and sewer services. This will also be a requirement for cottage developments.
This usually can be identified in the preliminary plat process but will be required in the
subdivision improvement plans or 1st building permit.
One of the other issues that we are seeing with ADUs, secondary building and buildings without
street frontage is the capability for the sewer to drain given the distance to the sewer main from
these buildings. Many will not be able to have basements. Some may need to be raised, and in
some cases, the adu or additional building cannot meet the requirements.
I don’t think we have any problem with any of the language, we want to make sure
that applicants consider the utility concerns and obstacles that may come up with
some of these changes.
The riparian and flood plain ordinances both apply [to Allen Park]. Riparian has
some flexibility if it is replacing an existing structure
Sustainability: No comments.
Transportation: No comments.
Zoning (Greg Mikolash 3/11/2019):
•The ‘proposed standard’ box should be colored orange to indicate a change from the
current ordinance regarding maximum building height. It appears the change for
building height is now being proposed to be measured from ‘established grade’ and not
‘finished grade’ and the height changes from ‘the average elevation at each building
face’ to ’30 feet’ (but measured to where?). We assume it means ‘30 feet measured as
the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given
point of lot coverage’. This should be spelled out clearly, since it is left undefined. This
proposal will also require changing the Illustration B in 21A.62.050.
There is a question of why are we returning to counting the number of building stories for
determination of maximum height when this was previously removed from the ordinance due to
difficulty in determining what is a basement and what is a story on a sloping lot? Why
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 53
are we proposing to go back to counting building stories over the simple
measurement of height?
The Zoning Reviewers are concerned about the addition of front yard setback averaging
(i.e., prevailing setback—the determination of an unknown, ambiguous dimension) into
the RMF zones. Front yard averaging offers no positive benefit to our neighborhoods
beyond what can be achieved by choosing a (known, non-ambiguous) fixed dimension.
Explaining the rationale behind setback averaging is difficult to explain to customers,
and it is even more difficult to obtain adequate information on the plans, showing the
averaging of setbacks. Ostensibly, requiring front yard averaging extends the timeframe
for issuing permits, where also, many new construction projects become contentious if
any entity believes these measurements are incorrect. What is the rationale of adding
front yard setback averaging to the multi-family zoning districts?
PLNPCM2019-00313 Page 54
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26,
2019 iii. AGENDA AND MINUTES
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
June 26, 2019, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
FIELD TRIP - The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
DINNER - Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126 of the
City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive training on
city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 12, 2019 REPORT OF THE CHAIR
AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.ADU at approximately 2250 South 1800 East - Lance and Kaelin Frame, owners of the property at 2250
South 1800 East, are requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) to the rear of the existing single-family home on site. All ADU proposals in the R-1/7,000 Single-
Family Residential zoning district are required to go through the Conditional Use review process. The
subject property is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Planning Staff contact:
Ashley Scarff (801) 535-7660 or ashley.scarff@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00263
2.ADU at approximately 64 W Andrew Ave - ASSIST Inc, the representative of the owner of the property,
is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the rear
yard of the home which is located at 64 W Andrew Avenue. All ADU proposals in the R-1/5,000 Single-
Family Residential zoning district are required to go through the Conditional Use review process. The
subject property is located in within Council District 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact;
Kristina Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00325
3.Text Amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District - The purpose of this
project is to review the existing zoning requirements in the City’s RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District and make amendments to corresponding sections of Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance. The
intent of the proposed amendments is to implement the recently adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year Housing
Plan (2018-2022) and remove zoning barriers to new housing development. Proposed amendments include:
Introducing design standards for all new development; allowing the construction of new building types including
side oriented row houses, cottage developments, and tiny houses; reducing lot size requirements per unit;
removing lot width minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum; allowing more than one primary
structure on a lot and the creation of new lots without street frontage; and granting a unit bonus for the retention
of an existing structure. The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.24.120 of the zoning
ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff Contact -
Lauren Parisi at (801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2019-00313
The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the
staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division’s website at www.slcgov.com /planning for copies of the Planning Commission
agendas, staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days
after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission
Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are recorded and archived, and may be viewed at www.slctv.com.
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 Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711.
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was
called to order at 5:32:00 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are
retained for a period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Maurine Bachman;
Commissioners Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes and Brenda
Scheer. Vice Chairperson Sara Urquhart; Commissioners Amy Barry, and Adrienne Bell were
excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Paul
Nielson, Attorney; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; Ashley Scarff, Principal Planner; Lauren
Parisi, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Maurine
Bachman, Weston Clark, and Carolynn Hoskins. Staff members in attendance were Wayne
Mills, Krissy Gilmore, and Ashley Scarff.
2250 South 1800 East - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.
64 W Andrew Ave - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.
APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 12, 2019, MEETING MINUTES. 5:32:36
PM MOTION 5:32:40 PM
Commissioner Scheer moved to approve the June 12, 2019, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Clark seconded the motion. Commissioners Lyon, Hoskins, Clark,
Scheer and Paredes voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:33:07 PM
Chairperson Bachman stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Urquhart was not present.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:33:11 PM
Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, informed the commission that we currently have 9
commission members and Planning Staff is currently in the process to assign more. He kindly
reminded the commission the importance of attendance.
5:33:48 PM
ADU at approximately 2250 South 1800 East - Lance and Kaelin Frame, owners of the
property at 2250 South 1800 East, are requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a
detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) to the rear of the existing single-family home on site.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 1
How the project was perceived by attendees at the Community Council
PUBLIC HEARING 6:21:35 PM
Chairperson Bachman opened the Public Hearing;
Nicole Zinnanti - Provided additional design detail information and purpose of the requested
ADU.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bachman closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:
Legal parking location
Parking requirements
MOTION 6:26:13 PM
Commissioner Hoskins stated, regarding PLNPCM2019-00325 ADU – 64 W Andrew Ave.,
based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and input
received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the
Conditional Use. Final approval of the details noted in the following conditions shall be
delegated to the Planning Staff which would be 1-4.
Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Scheer, Clark,
Hoskins, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
6:28:42 PM
Text Amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District - The purpose
of this project is to review the existing zoning requirements in the City’s RMF-30 Low Density Multi-
Family Residential Zoning District and make amendments to corresponding sections of Salt Lake
City’s Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the proposed amendments is to implement the recently
adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year Housing Plan (2018-2022) and remove zoning barriers to new
housing development. Proposed amendments include: Introducing design standards for all new
development; allowing the construction of new building types including side oriented row houses,
cottage developments, and tiny houses; reducing lot size requirements per unit; removing lot width
minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum; allowing more than one primary structure
on a lot and the creation of new lots without street frontage; and granting a unit bonus for the
retention of an existing structure. The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.24.120
of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of
this petition. (Staff Contact - Lauren Parisi at (801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2019-00313
Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located
in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission table the item
for further information.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 4
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
Non-conforming uses clarification
Parking location
Park strips and whether it can be used as parking
Tiny house definition clarification
Whether tiny houses can be subdivided without street frontage
When the last time the zone has been updated
PUBLIC HEARING 7:01:00 PM
Chairperson Bachman opened the Public Hearing;
Lynn Schwarz, Vice Chairperson Sugar House Community Council Land Use and Zoning
Committee – Raised concern on how the proposal could reduce existing affordable housing.
Also expressed concern regarding reviewing cottage developments and side-oriented row
houses administratively instead of going through the planned development process where the
public has a chance to review and comment on the proposal.
Judi Short, Chairperson of Land Use Sugar House Community Council – Raised concern with
the density, parking, and affordability. Would like to see redevelopment along 700 East where
some properties are zoned RMF-30.
Cindy Cromer – Stated this is the wrong zoning district to start with in trying to increase density
in the RMF zones. Current minimum lot size and width requirements are more effective in
terms of preserving historic and affordable structures than the local historic overlay. The
assumption that economics and tax advantages are not relevant is wrong. Must consider
increased construction costs for historic structures and building behind existing properties.
There are also multiple master plans that promote preservation that have not been addressed.
The 1995 zoning updated downzoned multiple residential neighborhoods.
Public hearing was left open for further information.
MOTION 7:16:21 PM
Commissioner Scheer moved to table the matter for further information. Commissioner
Hoskins seconded the motion.
The commission further discussed the proposed project.
Commissioners Lyon, Hoskins, Clark, Scheer, and Andres voted “Aye”. The motion
passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:32:19 PM
Salt Lake City Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 5
3A. PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 26, 2019
iv. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Published
Cindy Cromer – 6/26/2019
I own 6 properties in the RMF-30 and -35 zoning classifications, all located in National Register
Districts. I have managed rental properties since the mid-1970's. I probably have more experience with
affordable rental properties than anyone working in this building because of my age. And for the past
year and a half, I have been saying to the Planning staff, "This is the wrong place to start in an effort to
increase density." I have no objection to increasing density. I can show you the difference in the
performance of a building with 4 units and one with 6 units.
The handout is a picture of a house of cards. I am asking you to think of the structure as containing the
unsubsidized affordable units in the City. Two of the cards holding up the structure are the
requirements for minimum lot width and minimum lot size. These two requirements in the existing
ordinance are more effective in protecting the existing affordable units than the overlay for an historic
district. In fact, we have lost 52 contributory historic structures in the Central City Historic District
since it was adopted.
The research that the staff has done is meticulous but misguided. We could accomplish more for
affordable housing by doing what Dr. Chris Nelson told us to do: redevelop surface parking lots and
one-story office buildings. We could provide density bonuses for affordable units or for preservation
or for ADA compliant units or for removal of nonconforming uses. It would have been better to begin
by examining the RMF-75 which does not occur in the most fragile of our multiple family areas. Much
of the RMF-30 zoning doesn't even appear to be multiple family; my own buildings are regularly
mistaken for single family residences.
At issue:
The concept that a district which often appears to be single family should be the starting point for
increasing density.
That historic district status will protect what is valuable. It has not and will not, especially in Central City
and especially when the appeal can be handled by the Mayor who overturned the Landmarks
Commission's decisions on 4 historic structures last year.
That economics are not relevant to the outcome. What drives landlords, including me, are the tax
advantages. Regardless of how valuable a property may be, when the tax advantages through
depreciation disappear, an owner is motivated to redevelop the property or to sell it to someone who
will.
That construction costs are not a deciding factor. You only have to look at the suppression of height in
the transit corridors to see that construction costs, not the ordinance, determine the height of
buildings. No contractor is going to be willing to work around an existing building without additional
compensation.
Missing information:
Where are design standards working? They are usually, but not always, working in the historic
districts. They have not worked well in the transit corridors.
How many vacant residential buildings do we have? Salt Lake only keeps track of boarded
buildings. What are the obstacles to putting these vacant structures back into service?
What is the cost of losing an unsubsidized affordable unit?
What are the data on demolitions within the City's adopted historic districts? This information
is especially relevant to the Central City, Capitol Hill, and Avenues Historic Districts.
What is the effect on construction costs when an existing building remains on the site?
What do the Master Plans for the City's planning districts such as the Central Community say
about redevelopment? What about the Preservation Plan? What about the City's support for
National Register designations, including the funding for the Bennion/Douglas nomination?
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
i. ORIGINAL NOTICE AND POSTMARK
4770 s. 5600 w.
WEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH 84 1J8
FED.TAX l.D.# 87-02 17663
801-204-6910
PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY
I~c_u_sToMER N_AM. E_AND ADDRE s_s______________~ll~----A_cco_UNT_Nu _MB E_R____,
PLANNING DIV1SION,9001394298
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
PO BOX 145480 DATE
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 9/16/201 9
IACCOUNT NAME
PLANNING DIVISION,
ITELEPHONE IORDER #INVOICE NUMBER
8015357759 0001267129
IPUBLICATION SCHED ULE
START 09/1 4/2019 END 09/14/2019ICUSTOMER REFERENCE NUMBER
19Planning Commission Meeting 9/25/19
ICAPTION
Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, September 25, 2019, the Salt Lake City Plannin
SIZE
52 LINES 2 COLUMN(S)
ITIMES ITOTAL COST
2 135.00
..
Nolb of N>llc: Heartlg
On Wednesday, SeoterOOer 25, 2019, lhe Solt' 1.ak• Clly
PlaMlng COnmlsslon will hold a public hearing tcconsidermcikingreoou•netldatlons lo lhe Cily COU'lcilregarding lhe following petitions: ·
1. Tut Anwd1wds to ... l!Mf..30 Low tlllllnY Mull!-~
lleoldlnllal Dlllrld - The purpose of lhls proied Is lo review 1he
existing zoning requirements In lhe Cit· y's RMF·30 Low Density Mulli-F!rnily Reslclenllal Zon-mg District and make ameudmenb
lo a>rretf)Olldl~ sections Of Solt 1.ake City's Zoning Ordinance. The
in-tent of lhe proposed ameod111ents is lo lf11:11""*1t ..... 111.
pie mas!er plan policies fol.old ln Plan Solt Lake varl· ous
<X>ITli'U1lty master plans, lhe r- . tly a~c Growing Sl.C; A
Five-Year Housing Pion (2018~2622 and remove zoning
barrlen to housing development
The RMF-30 zoning dlstrlct ls localed lhroughout lh< clly. Proposed Qmet Onerrts Include:
• Introducing design stondards for all new develop-~fow1ng lhe ccnstructlon of new building types in.
duding sideways row houses, oottage deYelopments and tiny houses; .• ReduClng mlnlnun lot area requirements per ~II;• Removing lot wldlh mlnlnun requirements and add Ing a lot wldlh maxtnun;• Allawlng more than one prinary structure on a lot;
• Granting a clensily borus for lhe retention of an ex
Isling slnldur..The pr0j)058d regulation changes will affect sections ; 1 A.24.120 of lhe zoning ordinance. Reloled provision of Tiiie 21 A-Zoning may also be amended at pcirt o this petition. \Slaff Contact: Lauren Parisi at (80 l ) 535-7226 or auren.parlsl@slcgov.a>m) em. ....m.Nf'CM2019-oo:n.3
The Plbllc ~ring will begin at 5 :30 p.m. in room 321
of the City Ccu1ly Building, ll.51 SoUlh State Stree1
Salt Lake Oly, VT.
The City & County Building Is Oil ao::essible facillly.
People wllh dlsabflltles may make requests for reason able aac:onmodatlon. whldl may Include alternate for mots, lnlerpretel's, and other auxiliary aids and serv
icm.Please make requests at leml two business do)
ln advance . To ·ma1ce a r~. please ocntact th
Plamlng Offloe at 801-535-7757, or relay servio 711.
1267129 l.PAXlJ
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLJCATION
AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC dba UTAH MEDIA GROUP LEGAL BOOKER, I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTI
SEMENT OF Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, September 25, 2019, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to
consider making recommendations FOR PLANNING DIVISION, WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY, LLC dba UTAH
MEDIA GROUP, AGENT FOR DESERET NEWS AND THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH, AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF
UTAH. NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAHLEGALS.COM ON THE SAME DAY AS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DATE AND
REMAINS ON UTAHLEGALS.COM INDEFIN ITELY. COMPLIES WITH UTAH DIGITAL SIGNATURE ACT UTAH CODE 46-2- 101 ;
46-3- 104.
PUBLISHED ON Start 09/14/2019 End 09/14/2019
DATE 9/1 6/20 19 SIGNATURE ------------
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTYOF __S~Al-=JT~L=A~K=E--.._ __
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER IN THE YEAR 20 19
BY LORAINE GUDMLJNPSON.
JAE LEVI I
NOTARY PUBLIC -STATE OFUTAH
My Comm. Exp 05/29/2022
NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE®Commission # 700608
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
ii. MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
TO:Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM:Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner
(801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com
DATE:September 25, 2019
RE:PLNPCM2019-00313 – Text Amendments to the RMF-30
Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District
ACTION REQUIRED: Consider and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the
proposed text amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District,
Section 21A.24.120 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
REQUEST: On June 26th, 2019, the Planning Commission tabled this petition regarding proposed text
amendments to the RMF-30 zoning district to allow additional time for staff to fine tune the text
amendment language. The language has now been finalized and the proposal has been further updated to
address some additional concerns raised by the Planning Commission and members of the public. The
request remains generally the same as what was presented at the June meeting as follows:
A request by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to review the zoning standards of the RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort to remove zoning
barriers to housing development as recommended within Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing
Plan (2018-2022). The proposed text amendments to the RMF-30 District include:
1. Introducing design standards for new development
2. Allowing the construction of compatible multi-family building types including sideways
row houses, cottage developments, and tiny houses without special approval
3. Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit
4. Removing minimum lot width requirements and introducing a lot width maximum
5. Allowing more than one building on a lot without public street frontage
6. Granting a unit bonus for the retention of an existing structure on a lot
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in the staff report, Planning Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission forward on a positive recommendation to the City
Council for petition PLNPCM2019-00313 regarding the proposed text amendments to the RMF-
30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Proposed Text Amendments
B.June 26th Planning Commission Staff Report (Detailing Proposed Text Amendments)
C.Informational Maps/Photos
D.Analysis of Standards
E.Central City and Preservation Master Plan Responses
F.Public Process and Comments
G.City Department Comments
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 1
BACKGROUND: On June 26th, 2019, the Planning Commission tabled this petition regarding
proposed text amendments to the RMF-30 zoning district to allow additional time for staff to
fine tune the text amendment language, which has now been completed. The proposed text
amendments remain generally the same as what was presented at the June meeting and detailed
in the original staff report HERE, with the exception of some updates that have been made to
address concerns raised by both the Planning Commission and members of the public and that
staff feels make for a better proposal. The following section of this memo details each of the
larger updates that have been made since the June 26th Planning Commission meeting.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
Major Updates to the Proposed RMF-30 Text Amendments since June 26th
Planning Commission
1.Purpose Statement for the RMF-30 Zoning District
The general goal of this project is to remove zoning barriers to housing development. Within the
RMF-30 zoning district, the more specific goal is to facilitate the development of small-scale,
multi-family housing types that are compatible in terms of mass and scale with existing
structures in established residential neighborhoods of Salt Lake City. Not only do these smaller-
scale housing types “fit in” better with existing development, but they provide for a transitional
area between predominantly single-family neighborhoods and larger multi-family housing
developments. The allowance of smaller-scale, multi-family housing types also offers a different
option for people in various stages of their lives that may not be looking for a large single-family
home nor a small studio apartment in a high-rise building. This is something that Plan Salt Lake
identifies as a 2040 Target stating, “Increase diversity of housing types for all income
levels throughout the city.” Therefore, staff proposes to update the purpose statement for
the RMF-30 zoning district to remove the emphasis on number of units allowed per acre –
though density will continue to be regulated – and place new emphasis on facilitating a variety of
housing types that are compatible with existing development patters as follows:
The purpose of the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoning district is to provide an area in the city for
various multi-family housing types that are small scale in nature and that provide a transition between single-family
housing and larger multi-family housing developments. The primary intent of the district is to maintain the existing
physical character of established residential neighborhoods in the city, while allowing for incremental growth
through the integration of small-scale multi-family building types. The standards for the district are intended to
promote new development that is compatible in mass and scale with existing structures in these areas along with a
variety of housing options. This district reinforces the walkable nature of multi-family neighborhoods, supports
adjacent neighborhood-serving commercial uses, and promotes alternative transportation modes.
2. Standards for Cottage Developments
Cottage developments consist of two or more detached dwelling units, where each unit appears
to be a small single-family home, arranged around common green or open space. The City would
like to encourage this building type as each unit is limited in size and; therefore, works well as
compatible infill development and promotes homeownership. Concerns were raised at the June
26th Planning Commission meeting that the parking requirement of two stalls per unit was not
feasible on an average sized lot. Planning staff has found that reduced parking requirements are
recommended by the professional community to accommodate cottage developments. RMF-30
areas are also typically located close to public transit. Because of these reasons the parking
requirement has been reduced to one stall per cottage unit. Additionally, as these units are
intended to be smaller in nature, the maximum permitted height has been reduced from 30 feet
to 23 feet for a pitched roof and 16 feet for a flat roof.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 2
3. Standards for Sideways Row Houses
Sideways row houses consist of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common
wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where at least one unit’s entry faces a side yard as
opposed the front yard. Staff proposes to simplify the name of this building type from “side
oriented row house” to “sideways row house” as side oriented can mean different things
depending on the specific lot. Per the Planning Commission’s suggestion, staff also removed the
delineation standard for sideways row houses that required each dwelling unit to be delineated
as its own individual unit through the use of color, materials, articulation, etc. This standard was
in place to help break up longer side building walls as not to loom over neighboring properties.
Required glass and entry features are also in place to help break up side building walls. Because
this delineation standard can restrict design, is difficult to review, and other standards are in
place to break up side building walls, it has been removed.
4. Minimum Lot Area Requirements
Per the previous proposal presented to the Planning Commission on June 26th, minimum lot
area requirements were 2,500 square feet per unit for single-family, two-family and multi-
family buildings, and 1,500 square feet per unit for row houses, cottages and tiny houses.
However, staff felt that these numbers should be revisited to better align with the density
recommendations within the neighborhood master plans.
The Central Community Master Plan, where the majority of the RMF-30 properties are located, calls
for 10-20 units per acre in areas that have been designated as Low Medium Density Residential,
which represents the RMF-30 district. The Sugar House Master Plan designates RMF-30 areas as
Medium Density Residential, which calls for 8-20 units per acre. Therefore, the 2,500 square foot
requirement (17 units per acre) has been further reduced to 2,000 square feet (21 units per acre),
which optimizes the recommendation of this future land use designation. Reducing this requirement
to an even 2,000 square feet instead of the exact 20 units per acre at 2,178 square feet also allows the
average size lot in the RMF-30 district of 6,114 square feet to accommodate three units as opposed to
two.
RMF-35 district and 1,000 square feet per unit for the RMF-45 and RMF-75 districts in the future, which also falls in line
with the density recommendations in the neighborhood master plans).
The requirement for cottages and tiny houses has remained the same at 1,500 square feet
per unit. This is because these buildings types are limited in size and can be accommodated
on a smaller area of land. Row houses, however, are not limited in size and have a similar
impact as a multi-family building, which is why the requirement was increased back to
2,000 square feet per unit Overall, these reduced minimum lot requirements support small-
medium building footprints, which aligns with Plan Salt Lake’s housing initiative to
“Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.”
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 3
(For future reference, staff anticipates reducing this requirement to 1,500 square feet per unit for the
Limited Dwelling Units per Multi-Family Building Common “Multi-Plex” Form Layout
As noted in the purpose statement, the RMF-30 zoning district is intended to
accommodate small scale multi-family building types. This district is not
intended to accommodate very large apartment or condo buildings. With
traditional form-based codes, the number of dwelling units are limited within a
building type. “Multiplex” building types or small apartment/condo buildings
are typically limited to 6-10 units per building. Looking at the multi-family
buildings that currently exist in the RMF-30 district, very few have more than
eight units. Therefore, in order to encourage compatible development similar to
a form-based code, multi-family buildings will be limited to eight units. Unlike a
form-based code, minimum lot area requirements will still apply per unit (2,000
sq. ft./unit). If a lot is large enough to accommodate more than eight units, this
can be done with multiple buildings on the same lot as long as no building has
more than eight units.
Questions from the Public and Planning Commission
At the June 26th Planning Commission public hearing, multiple questions were asked by both the
Commission and members of the public that have been revisited below with more detailed responses.
1. Is existing housing being demolished and replaced with fewer, more expensive units in
Salt Lake City?
To get a general idea of whether or not this is happening, staff looked into the projects that have
gone through the housing mitigation process. Development projects must go through what is
referred to as housing mitigation when housing units are demolished and not replaced
– either fewer units are rebuilt, the housing is replaced with a commercial use, or not replaced at
all. When units are lost, the mitigation process requires that new units are built on a different site
in the vicinity or the developer must pay into the city’s housing mitigation fund.
Since 2015, 26 projects have gone through the housing mitigation process. That means that there
were 26 projects where housing units were demolished without being replaced; however, most of
these units were replaced with commercial uses or were demolished because they were deemed a
“nuisance” or unsafe. Based on this information, housing units are not being demolished and
replaced with fewer units and the city isn’t experiencing a net loss if housing.
Nonetheless, members of the public still have concerns that this replacement of existing
housing units with fewer, more expensive units will be triggered by the proposed text RMF-
30 text amendments due to the reduced lot area requirements and the ability to
accommodate more units on a lot. For example, a building that is “grandfathered in” in
terms of density with six relatively affordable units on a 6,000 square foot lot could now be
replaced with three larger, more expensive units with the proposed changes as opposed to
one unit under current standards. Although circumstances of every development project
vary, high demolition and construction costs in addition to the general uncertainty of any
new development project may work to encourage rehabilitation over demolition. And though
the proposed lot area requirements will allow more units that what is allowed today, many
existing multi-family buildings that are grandfathered in with a certain number of units have
significantly more units than they could ever have with the proposed changes, which may
also discourage demolition even if units could be sold at a higher price.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 4
2. How do the proposed text amendments promote the development of affordable housing
units?
Though promoting the development of affordable housing is a top priority of the City’s as
indicated within the City’s master planning documents, the goal of this project was never to
facilitate the development of affordable housing units (or units that cost less than 30% of the
average median income (AMI) for the area on a monthly basis). Instead, the general goal of
this project was to remove zoning barriers to the development of all types of housing.
However, as the law of supply and demand explains, allowing more housing units in general
may indirectly increase the availability of affordable units and stabilize rents. One may also
consider the economic theory of “filtering,” which says that as new market-rate housing is
built, higher-income people move into it and free up more affordable units. In the policy
brief, “The Effect of New Market-Rate Housing Construction on the Low-Income Housing
Market,” Economist Evan Mast of the Upjohn Institute found that for every 100
new market-rate units built, approximately 70 units are freed
up in neighborhoods earning below the area’s median
income. This is important to note as data from CBRE shows
rental rates are the highest in Salt Lake County and Salt
Lake City’s population growth rate is over triple that of
the U.S. rate.
Additionally, the first housing initiative in Plan Salt Lake states to, “Ensure success to
affordable housing citywide.” Properties zoned RMF-30 are scattered across the city and
removing zoning barriers within this particular district increases the amount of land available for
creative multi-family housing development. This is particularly important as the City looks invest
in affordable housing options in high-opportunity neighborhoods where slightly denser housing
arrangements like cottage developments are almost impossible to build due to zoning. Finally,
smaller lot size requirements may equate to smaller, more affordable units. Overall, the proposed
text amendments may indirectly promote the development of affordable units, or at the very
least, more affordable units. Removing zoning barriers to housing development is a small piece of
the overall housing affordability puzzle and should be implemented in conjunction with other
affordability programs in order to make the most meaningful impact.
3. What is being done to encourage the preservation of existing structures with this proposal?
Community members have expressed that they feel the existing minimum lot area and lot width
standards in the RMF zoning districts that have been in place since 1995 are preserving historic
structures in these areas. This is because most lots in the RMF-30 district are well under the
9,000 square feet of land and 80 feet of lot width required to accommodate just three
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 5
units. In fact, almost half of the lots zoned RMF-30 are under the 5,000 square feet of land
required to accommodate just one unit or a single-family home. The current lot area and
width standards do not allow for change. The RMF zones are meant to accommodate multi-
family uses and Salt Lake City is in need of more housing to accommodate its rapidly
growing population, which is why these standards must be updated.
Staff does acknowledge that reducing lot area and width requirements may lead to some
demolition of existing structures. However, different safeguards have been proposed an
effort to encourage preservation. First, a lot width maximum of 110’ for new lots has been put
in place to discourage the collection of parcels or “land banking” and, subsequently, the
demolition of multiple structures to accommodate larger developments. Second, a unit
bonus is being offered in conjunction with projects where the existing structure on the lot is
preserved. The idea is that this unit bonus would encourage units to be added within or onto
existing structures (single-family homes in particular) as opposed to demolishing the
structure and rebuilding fewer units than what could be achieved with the bonus. Portland,
Oregon is proposing a bonus along the same lines where an increased floor area ratio (FAR)
is given for the preservation of an existing structure. Moreover, a third of the parcels zoned
RMF-30 are located in a local historic district where demolition must be reviewed and
approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Many other standards are also in place
that must be met to accommodate new development besides lot area and lot width including
fire and building code standards. Though a lot may now be able to accommodate additional
units based on reduced lot area requirements, this does not guarantee new development.
4.Should properties zoned RMF-30 with single-family homes be rezoned to a single-
family zoning district?
No. The existing land use on a lot does not determine what its zoning classification
should be. The properties currently zoned RMF-30 were identified as being able to
accommodate multi-family uses based on their location within the city and adequate
access to transit, commercial services and public facilities. Salt Lake
City’s population is growing and multi-family
zoning districts must be in place to
accommodate this. Cities across the country
are starting to outlaw single-family zoning
due to severe housing shortages and this is
not a time to downzone multi-family
districts. To clarify, this proposal does not
include eliminating single-family homes as
an allowed use in the RMF-30 district, but
instead attempts to facilitate the
construction of compatible multi-family
structures. Incentives are being offered to
encourage preservation of existing structures
zoned RMF-30 including single-family
houses, but the preservation of areas that can
accommodate multi-family uses is also very
important.
The map above illustrates the discrepancy between the amount of land designated solely for
single-family homes (yellow) vs. the amount of land zoned multi-family residential (orange).
Single-family zones in yellow will not be affected by the proposed text amendments.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 6
5.What does building typology look like in the RMF-30 zoning district?
The Planning Commission mentioned that the different building types being introduced to
the RMF-30 zoning district including cottage developments, sideways row houses and tiny
houses may not be consistent with the existing building typology we find in RMF
neighborhoods. Looking at the existing building types in RMF-30 districts, there is a definite
mix of single-family, two-family and multi-family buildings of different sizes and
configurations. There are, in fact, existing cottage developments and sideways row houses in
these neighborhoods. Moreover, the building types being introduced work well as infill
development, which is something the city is working to promote in these areas as opposed to
land banking and subsequent demolition. Tiny houses are not typically seen in this district as
they would require 5,000 square feet of land to build; however, the community has
expressed a significant amount of interest in allowing these building types and staff does not
feel that their construction will disrupt the established building typology.
The City’s Housing Plan and Plan Salt Lake both specifically call for the allowance a wide variety
of housing types for all income levels throughout the city that respond to the shift in
demographics we’re seeing in terms of smaller household sizes, longer lifespans, etc. Principal 8
of the Council’s Guiding Principles on Housing Development says to, “Create a spectrum of
housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes,” and Principal 16 says to
“Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including housing
types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as family housing in
the downtown area, innovative housing types, missing middle housing and middle- to
low-income apartments.” All of the housing types being introduced, including tiny houses,
work to achieve this goal. Maximum height requirements, consistent setbacks, and required
design elements are also in place to promote compatible street typology.
The images below depict all of the different housing types found on a single street in Salt Lake City (Park
Street between 8th and 9th South) zoned RMF-30 and Attachment C includes photos of all proposed
building types currently zoned RMF-30.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 7
6. How does this proposal align with the goals in the city’s Central Community Master Plan and
Community Preservation Plan?
It was brought up that although the proposed text amendments may be in line with the City’s
Housing Plan, Plan Salt Lake and the City Council’s Principals on Housing Development as
detailed on the original staff report, the Central Community and Community Preservation
Master Plans were not addressed. The proposal falls in line with the Central Community
Master Plan including all four of the residential land use policies as follows:
Policy RLU 1.0 – Based on the Future Land Use map, use residential
zoning to establish and maintain a variety of housing opportunities
that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population.
The proposed text amendments have been crafted to promote missing middle
housing or “a range of multi-unit or clustered housing types – compatible is size and scale with
detached single-family homes – that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living”
(Opticos Design). Duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, small-scale apartment buildings,
etc., not only fit in with lower-scale, single-family neighborhoods in terms of mass,
scale, and overall residential character, but offer a different mid-size housing option
that is lacking across the city and in high opportunity areas like the Lower Avenues,
East Central and Central City. Because the height and footprint of these buildings
tend to be smaller, the units also tend to be more affordable and, in theory,
increasing the overall housing stock works to stabilize housing prices and ensure that
there are units available to a variety of income levels. However, these types of
housing are almost impossible to construct under current RMF zoning standards,
which is why the RMF-30 district must be updated to allow missing middle housing
and better align with this policy.
Policy RLU 2.0 – Preserve and protect existing single- and multi-
family residential dwellings within the Central Community through
codes, regulations, and design review.
Existing regulations within single-family zoning districts are not changing per the
proposed RMF-30 text amendments and as illustrated on the map on page 6 of this
report, single-family zoning districts cover a much larger area of the city than multi-
family (RMF) zones. A third of the properties zoned RMF-30 fall within a local historic
districts where demolition of existing structure must be approved by the historic
landmark commission and is difficult to achieve. For those properties outside of the
historic overlay, a density bonus is being offered for retaining the existing structure. A
maximum lot width restriction is being added to prevent large, out of scale residential
developments, discourage the assembly of parcels and discourage land banking over
time. The proposed zoning standards allow for the flexibility to add units within, onto or
detached from an existing structure. This flexibility to work with existing structures may
promote preservation as opposed to having to demolish to meet current zoning
standards. Additionally, as the Master Plan encourages, design standards are being
introduced to promote quality, compatible development.
Policy RLU 3.0 – Promote construction of a variety of housing options
that are compatible with the character of the neighborhoods of the
Central Community.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 8
The proposed text amendments promote the development of a variety of housing
options that are small scale in nature including cottage developments, row
houses and small multi-family buildings. These housing types can not only
accommodate more units, but fit in with the physical character of established
residential neighborhoods in Central City in terms of mass and scale.
Policy RLU 4.0 – Encourage mixed use development that provides
residents with a commercial and institutional component while
maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood.
While the proposed text amendments do not include the allowance of commercial uses
within the RFM-30 district, properties within this zoning designation tend to be located
near established commercial uses, especially in the Central City neighborhoods. Because
of this, these areas tend to be more walkable, which is something that more and more
residents are willing to trade for smaller living spaces. Therefore, by allowing more
housing in these areas, the city is promoting both the preservation of residential-serving
commercial uses and increasing walkability.
The city’s Community Preservation Plan encourages the adoption of a wider range
of preservation tools. Specifically, Action 1 under this policy states:
Action 1. Amend the zoning regulations to allow density bonuses, in the
form of an additional unit, for structures in the local historic district or a
Landmark Site which are zoned multi-family on lots that would not
otherwise allow additional units due to size.
Many of the structures outside of local districts – where demolition does not have to be
reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmark Commission – are single-family
homes. Per the proposed changes to minimum lot area requirements, 544 properties
would be eligible to add at least one additional unit on the lot in addition to what is there
(see eligibility maps highlighting all properties that could add at least one additional unit
on the same lot per the proposed changes in Attachment C). Of those properties, 229 or
42% are currently single-family homes and could add one additional unit per the
changes (at 2,000 square feet per unit). The proposed unit bonus targets these homes by
allowing the addition of two units within or onto the existing structure instead of
demoing what is there and only being able to add one additional unit.
Overall, the proposed text amendments have been crafted to achieve a balance between
facilitating the construction of more housing units (different housing options) and preserving
existing structures along with existing residential character that the Central Community Master
Plan and Community Preservation Plan both encourage. More detailed responses to the Central
Community Master and Preservation Plan have been included under
NEXT STEPS: Because the proposal aligns with the recommendations within City-wide and
neighborhood master plans and because staff feels that it achieves the overall goal of facilitating
the development of multi-family housing that is compatible in size and scale with existing
residential neighborhoods, planning staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
forward on a positive recommendation to the City Council.
The City Council has the final authority to make changes to the text of the City Code. The
recommendation of the Planning Commission for this request will be forwarded to the City
Council for their review and decision.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 9
Attachment E.
ATTACHMENT A: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
Proposed Changes to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Ordinance (21A.24.120)
21A.24.120: RMF-30 LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District is
to provide an environment suitable for a variety of housing types of a low density nature,
including single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings, with a maximum height of thirty
feet (30'). This district is appropriate in areas where the applicable Master Plan policies
recommend multi-family housing with a density of less than fifteen (15) up to twenty (20) dwelling
units per acre. 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.
The purpose of the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoning district is to provide an
area in the city for various multi-family housing types that are small scale in nature and that
provide a transition between single-family housing and larger multi-family housing developments.
The primary intent of the district is to maintain the existing physical character of established
residential neighborhoods in the city, while allowing for incremental growth through the
integration of small scale multi-family building types. The standards for the district are intended
to promote new development that is compatible in mass and scale with existing structures in
these areas along with a variety of housing options. This district reinforces the walkable nature of
multi-family neighborhoods, supports adjacent neighborhood-serving commercial uses, and
promotes alternative transportation modes.
B. Uses: Uses in the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District, as specified in
section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this
title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this
chapter and this section.
C. 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, provided that all
other zoning requirements are met; and,
1. Design Standards: Where new principal buildings do not have public street frontage, design
standards applicable to street facing facades in chapter 21A.37 of this title shall be applied to
the building face where the primary entrance is located.
D. Lot Width Maximum: The width of a new lot shall not exceed one hundred and ten feet (110’).
Where more than one lot is created, the combined lot width of adjacent lots within a new
subdivision, including area between lots, shall not exceed one hundred and ten feet (110’).
E. Density Bonus: To encourage the preservation of existing structures, bonus dwelling units
may be granted when an existing principal structure is retained as part of a project that adds
at least one additional dwelling unit on the same lot pursuant to the following:
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 10
1. A density bonus may only be requested at the time of filing for a building permit
application to add at least one additional unit on a lot where that unit meets the minimum
lot area requirement.
2. One (1) bonus unit may be granted for retaining an existing single or two-family structure
and two (2) bonus units for retaining an existing multi-family structure.
3. A bonus unit may be added within or attached to the existing principal structure or
as a separate building provided that all other applicable zoning requirements are
met. Bonus units are not subject to minimum lot area requirements.
4. The addition of a bonus unit to an existing principal structure does not change
the building type of that existing structure.
5. Bonus units are exempt from required off-street parking.
6. The exterior building walls and roofline of the existing principal structure must be retained
to obtain a bonus unit; however, architectural elements such as window openings and
doorways may be modified; dormers may be added; and additions to the rear of the
structure are allowed.
7. Any density bonus granted shall be recognized with a zoning certificate.
C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this
district are as follows:
Minimum Minimum
Land Use Lot Area Lot Width
Multi-family dwellings 9,000 square feet1 80 feet
Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and No minimum No
police and fire stations minimum
Natural open space and conservation areas, public and No minimum No
private minimum
Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 140 feet
Public pedestrian pathways, trails and greenways No minimum No
minimum
Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes No minimum No
and poles minimum
Single-family attached dwellings (3 or more)3,000 square feet Interior: 25
per unit feet
Corner: 35
feet
Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
Twin home dwelling 4,000 square feet 25 feet
per unit
Two-family dwellings 8,000 square feet 50 feet
Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 11
Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 square feet 50 feet
section 21A.33.020 of this title
Qualifying provisions:
1.9,000 square foot minimum for 3 dwelling units plus 3,000 square feet for each additional
dwelling unit.
F. RMF-30 Building Types: The permitted building types are described in this subsection. Each
building type includes a general description and definition. These definitions shall prevail over
those in the definitions chapter 21A.62 of this title.
1. Single-Family Dwelling: A detached residential structure that contains one (1) dwelling unit.
The structure has an entry facing the street, a front porch or landing, and a front yard.
2. Two-Family Dwelling: A residential structure that contains two (2) dwelling units in a single
building. The units may be arranged side by side, up and down, or front and back. Each unit
has its own separate entry directly to the outside. Dwellings may be located on separate
lots or grouped on one lot.
3. Cottage Development: A unified development that contains a minimum of two (2) and a
maximum of eight (8) 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.
a. Additional Development Standards for Cottage Building Forms
i.Setbacks Between Individual Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum
setback of eight feet (8') from another cottage.
ii.Area: No cottage shall have more than eight hundred and fifty (850) square
feet of gross floor area, excluding basement area.
iii.Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or
a common open space.
iv.Open Space: A minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of common,
open space is required per cottage. At least fifty percent (50%) of the open
space shall be contiguous and include landscaping, walkways or other
amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
v.Parking: A minimum of one (1) off street parking space per unit is required.
b. Cottage Units on Individual Lots without Public Street Frontage: Lots without
public street frontage may be created to accommodate cottage developments
without planned development approval per the following standards.
i.Required setbacks in Table 21A.24.120.G shall be applied to the perimeter of
the cottage development as opposed to each individual lot within the
development. The front and corner yards of the perimeter shall be maintained
as landscaped yards.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 12
ii.Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development as opposed to
each individual lot within the development.
iii.Required off street parking stalls for a unit within the cottage development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv.A final subdivision plat is required for any cottage development creating
individual lots without public street frontage. The final plat must document the
following:
1. The new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of
easements or a shared driveway.
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared
infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per section 21A.55.110
of this title is submitted with the preliminary subdivision plat.
4. Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one common
wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where each unit’s entry faces a public street. A row
house contains a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) residential dwelling units in
order to maintain the scale found within the RMF-30 zoning district. Each unit may be on its
own lot; however, each lot must have frontage on a public street unless approved as a
planned development.
5. Sideways Row House: A series of attached single-family dwellings that share at least one
common wall with an adjacent dwelling unit and where each unit’s entry faces a side yard
as opposed the front yard. A sideways row house contains a minimum of three (3) and a
maximum of six (6) residential dwelling units in order to maintain the scale found within the
RMF-30 zoning district. Each unit may be on its own lot.
a. Additional Development Standards for Sideways Row House Building Forms:
i.Setbacks: Setbacks shall be applied as depicted in Reference Illustration
21A.24.120B. The interior side yard setbacks shall be ten feet (10’) on one
side and six feet (6’) on the other. A sideways row house is not subject to
provision 21A.24.H of this section regarding buildings with side entries.
ii.Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a public street shall have
its primary entrance on the street facing façade of the building with
an entry feature per chapter 21A.37 of this title.
iii.Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade of the building that
is parallel to, or located along, a public street.
iv.Required Glass: Ground and upper floor glass requirements shall apply per
section 21A.37.060 and table 21A.37.060 of this title to the front and interior
facades of a sideways row house.
b. Sideways Row House Units on Individual Lots without Public Street Frontage: Lots
without public street frontage may be created to accommodate sideways row houses
without planned development approval per the following standards.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 13
i.Required setbacks shall be applied to the perimeter of the row house
development as opposed to each individual lot within the development. The
front and corner side yards of the perimeter shall be maintained as
landscaped yards.
ii.Lot coverage shall be calculated for the overall development as opposed to
each individual lot within the development.
iii.Required off street parking for a unit within the row house development is
permitted on any lot within the development.
iv.A final subdivision plat is required for any row house development creating
individual lots without public street frontage. The final plat must document
the following:
1. The new lot(s) has adequate access to a public street by way of
easements or a shared driveway.
2. A disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared
infrastructure associated with the new lot(s) per section 21A.55.110
of this title is submitted with the preliminary subdivision plat.
REFERENCE ILLUSTRATION 21A.24.120B
Required Setbacks for Public Street (Normal) Facing Row House
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 14
Required Setbacks for Sideways Row House
F = Front Yard Adjacent to a Public Street
S = Side Yard
R = Rear Yard
6. Multi-Family Residential: A multi-family residential structure containing at
least three (3) dwelling units that may be arranged in a number of
configurations. A maximum of eight (8) dwellings units are allowed in each
multi-family residential building.
7. Tiny House: A detached residential structure that contains one (1) dwelling unit
with a permanent foundation that is 400 square feet or less in usable floor area
excluding lofted space. The structure has a single entry facing the street, an alley or
open space on a lot, but shall not face an interior property line.
i.Additional Development Standards for Tiny House Forms:
ii.Balconies and Decks: Balconies and decks shall not exceed eighty (80)
square feet in size when located above the ground level of the buildings
and shall be located a minimum of ten feet (10') from a side or rear yard lot
line unless the applicable side or rear yard lot line is adjacent to an alley.
iii.Rooftop Decks: Rooftop decks on tiny houses are prohibited.
iv.Parking: A minimum of one (1) off street parking space per unit is required.
8. Non Residential Building: A building that houses a non-residential use either permitted or
permitted as a conditional use in the underlying zoning district.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 15
D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty feet
(30').
E. Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front Yard: Twenty feet (20').
2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10').
3. Interior Side Yard:
a. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings:
(1) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other.
(2) Corner lots: Four feet (4').
b. Single-family attached: No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be less than
four feet (4').
c. Twin home dwelling: No yard is required along one side lot line. A ten foot (10') yard is required on
the other.
d. Multi-family dwelling: Ten feet (10') on each side.
e. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side.
4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need
not exceed twenty five feet (25').
5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in
a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required
Yards", of this title.
F. Required Landscape Yards: The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as
landscape yards.
G. Maximum Building Coverage:
1. Single-Family Detached: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not
exceed forty five percent (45%) of the lot area.
2. Single-Family Attached Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings
shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 16
3. Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory
buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
4. Multi-Family Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not
exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area.
5. Existing Dwellings: For dwellings existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of such existing buildings
shall be considered legally conforming.
6. Nonresidential Land Uses: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall
not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
H. Landscape Buffers: For multiple-family uses where a lot abuts a lot in a single-family or two-family
residential district, a landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21A.48
of this title.
G. Building Type Standards: Building type standards are listed in table 21A.24.120.H of this section.
Table 21A.24.120.G
RMF-30 Building Type Standards
Building Type
Single-Two-Multi-Row Sideways Row Cottage Tiny NonBuildingFamilyFamilyFamilyHouse1House1Development1House1Residential
Regulation Dwelling Dwelling Residential Building
H Height 30’Pitched Roof-16’30’
23’
Flat Roof-16’
F Front yard 20’ or the average of the block face
setback
C Corner 10’
side
yard
setback
S Interior 4’ on one side 10’4’6’ on one side 4’10’
side 10’ on the other 10’ on theyardother
setback
R Rear yard Minimum of 20% lot depth, need not exceed 25'10’Minimum
of 20% lot
depth,
need not
exceed 25’
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 17
L Minimum 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 1,500 sq. ft. per 5,000 sq.
lot size2 dwelling unit ft. per
building
DU Maximum 1 2 8 6 8 per 1 n/a
Dwelling development
Units per
Form
BC Maximum 50%
Building
Coverage
LY Required The front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards.
Landscaped
Yards
LB Landscape X X X
Buffers per
subsection
21A.48.080C
of this title.
G AttachedGarage doors accessed from the front or corner side yard shall be no wider than 50% of
Garagesthe front facade of the structure and set back at least 5' from the street facing building
facade and at least 20' from the property line. Interior side loaded garages are permitted.
DS Design All new buildings are subject to applicable design standards in chapter 21A.37 of this title.
Standards
Notes:
1. See subsection 21A.24.120F of this title for additional standards
2. Minimum lot size may be calculated for a development as whole as opposed to each
individual lot within a development.
I. Additional Lot Area Requirements: No minimum lot area is required for public or private natural
open space and conservation areas; public pedestrian pathways, trails, greenways, parks and
community gardens; or, public or private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes, poles and utility
buildings or structures.
J. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located
in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required
Yards", of this title
J. Accessory Uses, Buildings And Structures: All accessory uses, buildings and structures shall
comply with the applicable standards in chapter 21A.40 and section 21A.36.020 of this title.
(Ord. 66-13, 2013: Ord. 12-11, 2011: Ord. 62-09 §§ 5, 8, 2009: Ord. 61-09 § 6, 2009: Ord. 88-95 § 1
(Exh. A), 1995: Ord. 26-95 § 2(12-11), 1995)
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 18
Chapter 21A.37 DESIGN STANDARDS
21A.37.050: DESIGN STANDARDS DEFINED:
The design standards in this chapter are defined as follows. Each design standard includes a
specific definition of the standard and may include a graphic that is intended to help further
explain the standard, however the definition supersedes any conflict between it and a graphic.
P. Entry Features: Each required entrance per section 21A.37.050D of this title shall include a
permitted entry feature with a walkway connected to a public sidewalk and exterior lighting that
highlights the entryway(s). Where buildings are located on a corner lot, only one of the street facing
facades must include an entry feature. Where a building does not have direct public street
frontage, the entry feature should be applied to the façade where the primary entrance is
determined to be located. A two-family dwelling arranged side by side, row house and cottage
development shall include at least one entry feature per dwelling unit.
1. Permitted Encroachments: A permitted entry feature may encroach up to five feet (5')
into a required front yard; however, in no case shall an encroachment be closer than
five feet (5’) to a front property line. A covered entry feature encroaching into a front
yard may not be enclosed.
2. Permitted Entry Features:
a. Covered Porch – A covered, raised porch structure with or without
railings spanning at least a third the length of the front building façade.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 19
b. Portico – A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported
by columns over a landing or walkway.
c. Awning or Canopy – A cover suspended above the building entry over a landing or
walkway where the wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by at least one
foot (1’) from the front building plane.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 20
d. Emphasized Doorway – A doorway that is recessed by at least ten inches (10’’)
from the front building plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a
different material than the front façade, differentiated patterns or brickwork around
the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need not be recessed more than six inches
(6’’) on a tiny house.
21A.37.060: DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT:
This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a
box is checked, that standard is required. If a box is not checked, it is not required. If a specific
dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the definition,
it will be indicated within the box. In cases when a dimension in this table conflicts with a dimension
in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table supersede those in the definition.
TABLE 21A.37.060
A. Residential districts:
Standard
(Code Section)
Ground floor use (%)
(21A.37.050A1)
District
R-R-
RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
75 75
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 21
District
R-R-
Standard RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
(Code Section)30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
Ground floor use +
visual interest (%)
(21A.37.050A2)
Building materials:50 80 80
ground floor (%)
(21A.37.050B1)
Building materials:50
upper floors (%)
(21A.37.050B2)
Glass: ground floor 20 60 60 40
(%) (21A.37.050C1)
Glass: upper floors 15
(%) (21A.37.050C2)
Building entrances (feet)X 75 75 X
(21A.37.050D)
Blank wall: maximum 15 15 15 15
length (feet)
(21A.37.050E)
Street facing facade:
maximum length (feet)
(21A.37.050F)
Upper floor step back 10
(feet) (21A.37.050G)
Lighting: exterior
(21A.37.050H)
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 22
District
R-R-
Standard RMF-RMF-RMF-RMF-MU-MU-R-
(Code Section)30 35 45 75 RB 35 45 MU RO
Lighting: parking lot X X
(21A.37.050I)
Screening of X X X X
mechanical equipment
(21A.37.050J)
Screening of service X X X X
areas (21A.37.050K)
Ground floor residential
entrances
(21A.37.050L)
Parking garages or
structures
(21A.37.050M)
Residential character in X
RB District
(21A.37.050N)
Entry Features X
(21A.37.050P)
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 23
ATTACHMENT B: JUNE 26TH PC STAFF REPORT
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 24
Staff Report
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
TO:Salt Lake City Planning Commission
FROM:Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner
DATE:June 26th, 2019
RE:PLNPCM2019-00313 - Text Amendments to the RMF-30
Low Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Wide
PARCEL ID: N/A
MASTER PLAN: Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 / Plan Salt Lake
ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
REQUEST: A request by Mayor Jackie Biskupski to review the zoning standards of the RMF-
30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort
to remove zoning barriers to housing development as recommended within Growing
SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan (2018-2022). The proposed text amendments to the
RMF-30 District include:
1. Introducing design standards for all new development
2. Allowing the construction of new building types including side oriented row houses,
cottage developments, and tiny houses without special approval
3. Reducing lot size requirements
4. Removing lot width minimums
5. Allowing more than one building on a lot without planned development approval
6. Granting a unit bonus for the retention of a structure on a lot
7. Introducing a maximum lot width for newly created lots
RECOMMENDATION: At this time, staff recommends that the Planning Commission table
petition PLNPCM2019-00313 regarding updates to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-
Family Residential Zoning District and make a recommendation to City Council at a
later date once the proposed text amendments have been finalized.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Proposed Text Amendments
B.Informational Maps
C.Analysis of Standards
D.Public Process and Comments
E.City Department Comments
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 25
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of this project is to review the zoning standards within the RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential District and propose amendments in an effort to remove zoning
barriers to housing development as recommended within Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing
Plan (2018-2022). For some time, staff has recognized that many of the zoning standards within
the city’s four multi-family residential (RMF) zoning districts can be quite restrictive and limit
creative housing development, which is why these amendments are being proposed starting the
lowest density RMF-30 district. The goal is to solidify changes to this multi-family district first,
and apply similar changes to the rest of the multi-family districts in the near future.
A Closer Look at RMF-30.
The majority of Salt Lake City’s RMF-30 districts are scattered throughout the northern center
of the City – north of Liberty Park, east of the Downtown and west of the University of Utah.
There is also a large concentration of RMF-30 just south of 1-80 off of 700 East. City data
indicates there are approximately:
1,028 RMF-30 parcels .06 acres (2,613 square feet) or greater – large enough to build upon
331 RMF-30 are located in a local historic district where the demolition of historic structures
must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission
3,212 parcels .06 acres or greater in all RMF-30, -35, -45 and -75 zoning districts.
*Larger maps of all of the RMF zoning districts and the RMF-30 lots located within a local
historic district can be found in Attachment B.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 26
Lot Size
The average lot size in the RMF-30 zone is 6,114 square feet1; however, as illustrated by the
distribution graph below, close to half of the lots (487 of 1,028) fall between 3,000 – 6,000
square feet in size. By current standards, the average lot couldn’t accommodate
anything more than a single-family home, which requires 5,000 square feet of lot area
per unit. Three quarters of the lots (783) couldn’t accommodate a duplex or twin-home, which
requires 8,000 square feet of lot area per unit. There is no special process in place to request
additional units on a lot if it does not meet these minimum area requirements.
Lot Width
A similar pattern can be seen with existing lot widths in the city. The average lot width in the
RMF-30 zone is 58 feet wide2; however, 662 or 65% of the lots fall between 31 and 50 feet wide
– well under the 80-foot lot width requirement to accommodate a multi-family development or
3+ units without special approval. In fact, more than half of the lots are under 50 feet
wide, and do not have the width to accommodate a single-family home by current
standards. Required lot width can be modified through planned development approval.
To note – the total number of lot width measurements is greater than the total number of lots in the
RMF-30 district as it accounts for the two sides on every corner lot.
Land Use
RMF-30 Land Use Historic Designation
1%
20%32%33%
15%64%
35%
Single Family Duplex Multifamily Other None Local and National National only
1 66 outlier parcels removed from average over 14,000 square feet in area
2 42 outliers parcels removed with widths less than 25 feet and greater than 250 feet
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 27
Looking at existing land use on the 1,028 parcels in the RMF-30 district, Salt Lake County tax
assessor classifies: 565 as single-family homes, 130 as duplexes, 178 as multi-family buildings
(3+ units), and 14 as a combination of residential uses and the rest vary in use (vacant,
commercial, planned development, etc.). Of those 887 residential properties, 35% or 313 are
located in a local historic district where the demolition of historic structures must be reviewed
and approved by the City’s Historic Landmark Commission.
Missing Middle Housing. With the proposed RMF-30 updates, the City hopes to encourage
the development of “missing middle housing” in particular, which has been described as:
“Range of multi-unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes
that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living. These types provide diverse housing options
along a spectrum of affordability, including duplexes, fourplexes, and [cottage developments], to support
walkable communities, locally-serving retail, and public transportation options. Missing Middle Housing
provides a solution to the mismatch between the available U.S. housing stock and shifting demographics
combined with the growing demand for walkability” (Congress for the New Urbanism).
Diagram of Missing Middle Housing Types. Source: Opticos Design, Inc.
Missing middle housing is not a new type of housing. It’s housing that exists in Salt Lake City today:
duplexes, triplexes, fourplex buildings, townhouses, small-scale apartment buildings, etc. However,
more often than not, these housing types are difficult to build because they do not meeting current
zoning standards, especially in areas where they’re best suited near the city’s downtown, universities
and, of course, public transit. Below are some examples of existing missing middle housing types
that “fit in” with their surroundings while providing higher unit counts. Note the number of units
that exist on the lot, the number of units that are allowed per current RMF-30 standards.
682-688 E. 700 South – 16 units on 8,429 sq. ft. = 527 sq. ft. per
unit Current Allowance – 2 units
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 28
661 S. Green St. –10 units on 27,234 sq. ft. = 2,723 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 9 units (separate structures on single lot also not permitted)
852 S. 800 East –12 units on 17,424 sq. ft. = 1,452 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 5 units (separate structures on single lot also not permitted)
620 S. Park St. –12 units on 17,877 sq. ft. = 1,490 sq. ft. per unit
Current Allowance 5 units
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 29
Proposed RMF-30 Text Amendments.
The following section of this report goes into more detail regarding each of the specific updates
being proposed to the RMF-30 zoning standards. By updating these standards, the City hopes to
remove some of the zoning barriers that limit new housing development, while encouraging
compatible design and maintaining existing housing stock. With this in mind, Planning Staff is
recommending implementing what could be described as “hybrid” form based standards.
Form based codes focus on the regulation of what buildings look like in terms of their compatibility
with existing buildings in a neighborhood as well as their relationship with the street or what is
referred to as the “public realm.” This differs from traditional zoning approaches, which emphasize
the separation of land uses – single-family here, multi-family over there, on this amount of land, etc.
With this hybrid approach, the proposed updates work to facilitate the development of slightly
denser, “missing-middle” housing types that fit in with existing development patterns in the RMF-30
districts, while continuing to regulate required lot area per unit.
1. Design Standards – Promote compatible design with durable building materials.
Design standards for new construction are intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to
shape and promote a walkable environment in specific zoning districts, foster place making as a
community and economic development tool, protect property values, assist in maintaining the
established character of the city, and implementing the city's master plans. Design requirements are
in place within many of the city’s commercial and mixed-use zoning districts, but not in any of the
RMF districts. Therefore, the following design requirements consistent with Chapter 21A.37: Design
Standards of the Zoning Ordinance are proposed to be applied to the RMF-30 district:
Durable Building Materials – Other than windows and doors, 50% of a new building’s
street facing façade shall be clad in durable materials including stone, brick, masonry,
textured or patterned, and fiber cement board. Traditional stucco falls under masonry.
Other durable materials may be approved at the discretion of the planning director.
Glass – All new buildings shall have at least 20% of glass (windows, doors, etc.) on the
ground floor street facing façade and 15% on the upper street facing façade.
Building Entrances – At least one operable building entrance on the ground floor is
required for every street facing façade, which includes corner façades.
Blank Wall Maximum – The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows,
doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground level along any street facing facade is 15 feet.
Screening of Mechanical Equipment and Services Areas – All mechanical
equipment and service areas shall be screened from public view and sited to
minimize their visibility and impact.
RMF Entry Features – Along with required building entrances, each entrance
shall have one of the following entry features including lighting and a walkway
that connects to a public sidewalk:
a. Covered Porch – A covered, raised porch structure with or without railings spanning at least a
third the length of the front building façade.
b. Portico – A structure with a roof protruding over the building entry supported by columns or
enclosed by walls over a stoop or walkway.
c. Awning or Canopy – A hood or cover suspended above the building entry over a stoop or walkway where the
wall(s) around the entry project out or recess in by at least one foot (1’) from the front building plane.
d. Emphasized Doorway – A doorway that is recessed by at least one foot (1’) from the front building
plane and architecturally emphasized with a doorframe of a different material than the front
façade, differentiated patterns or brickwork around the door, and/or sidelights. Doorways need
not be recessed more than six inches (6’’) on a tiny house.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 30
2.New Building Forms in RMF-30 – Encourage building forms and arrangements
that are compatible with smaller-scale development with lower perceived density.
In addition to single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings, etc., the City would
like to encourage three new specific housing types or forms in the RMF-30 zoning district that
may allow for slightly higher unit counts, but are also compatible with existing development in
the area. These three types include cottage developments, side oriented row houses and tiny
houses that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed in RMF districts without special approval.
Cottage Developments are currently allowed in the city’s existing Form Based districts and are
defined as, “a unified development that contains two (2) or more 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.” Cottage structures have relatively small
footprints and are grouped in a communal fashion on a lot. The following design standards would be
applied to these forms including limiting usable floor area to 850 square feet.
i. Setbacks Between Cottages: All cottages shall have a minimum setback of eight feet (8') from
another cottage.
ii. Area: No cottage shall have more than eight hundred fifty (850) square feet of usable
floor area.
iii. Building Entrance: All building entrances shall face a public street or a common open space.
iv. Open Space: A minimum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of common, open space is
required per cottage up to a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet. At least fifty percent
(50%) of the open space shall be contiguous and include landscaping, walkways or other
amenities intended to serve the residents of the development.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 31
Side Oriented Row Houses where the entries of single-family attached units face the side of a lot
as opposed to the street are difficult to build in any zoning district because code currently does not
allow lots without public street frontage. With intentional design, side oriented row houses can make
good use of the long narrow lots in the city while maintaining compatibility with lower-scale
residential development. These forms are frequently reviewed by the Planning Commission and just
as frequently approved provided that the front-most unit is completely oriented to the street and
adequate buffers are maintained around the property. Therefore, it is being proposed that side
oriented row houses be allowed by right, per the additional standards below. Keep in mind that these
standards will be applied in conjunction with the proposed standards in Chapter 21A.37: Design
Standards and a special exception will be required if each unit is on its own lot.
i. Interior Setbacks: The interior side yard setbacks (S) shall be ten feet (10’)
on one side and six feet (6’) on the other.
ii. Front Building Entry: The unit adjacent to a street shall have its primary
entrance on the façade of the building parallel to the street with an entry
feature per section 21A.37 of this title.
iii. Garage Doors: Garage doors are prohibited on the façade facing the front yard area.
iv. Delineation: Each dwelling unit shall be delineated as an individual unit
through the use of color, materials, articulation of building walls,
articulation in building height, lighting, and/or other architectural elements.
v. Required Glass: For all floors or levels above the ground floor, a minimum of
twenty percent (20%) of all street facing facades must be glass. Interior
building facades shall also have a minimum of fifteen (15%) ground floor
glass and fifteen (15%) upper floor glass.
Tiny Houses are limited by building code to 400 square feet in area
excluding lofted space. A tiny home differs from a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as they
are more limited in size and would not have to be owner occupied or associated with a single-family
home. These structures would also have a permanent foundation and could not be on wheels. Tiny
houses can be built today, but are treated the same as a single-family home and require 5,000 square
feet of land area to build. This amount of land is not necessary for a 400 square-foot structure.
Therefore, standards are being proposed to allow these structures on smaller lots with reduced
setbacks, building height, etc. To note, the public has expressed a lot of interest in building these
types of structures, which is another reason why this form is being proposed.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 32
3. Reduced Lot Area Requirements – Allow multi-family housing on average size
lots equipped to accommodate multi-family development (3+ units).
In most residential zoning districts in the city, the Zoning Ordinance regulates the number of units
per square footage of land area – otherwise known as density requirements. Currently, the RMF-30
zone permits one multi-family unit per every 3,000 square feet of land (must have at least 3 units to
have a multi-family building or 9,000 square feet of land). Considering that about half of
existing lots in the RMF-30 zone fall between 3,000 and 6,000 square feet, these lots
couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single-family home. For additional
perspective, the existing historic developments on pages 4 and 5 of this report have between 530 to
1,500 square feet of land per unit. The Central Community Master Plan’s future land use designation
for these areas also calls for up to 20 units per acre or 2,178 square feet per unit.
It is clear that the existing lot area requirements do not promote multi-family housing, which is why this
proposal includes reducing the lot area requirements to 2,500 square feet per unit for traditional multi-
family units (apartment building and condo buildings) and to 1,500 square feet for row houses, cottage
developments and tiny house or building forms that can accommodate more units while remaining
compatible with lower density development. This proposal also tends to align with lot area requirements
in other urban areas of the country, which generally range from 1,500 to 2,900 square feet per unit.
Denver, for example, that utilizes a form based code, allows 10 units maximum on a minimum of 6,000
square feet in similar-type zoning districts. This equates to 6oo square feet of lot area per unit. Staff
acknowledges that this proposal for Salt Lake City’s RMF-30 zoning district is relatively moderate in
comparison to Denver. Current and proposed lot area requirements have been listed below and a table
with lot area requirements across the U.S. can be found in Attachment B.
LAND USE CURRENT AREA REQUIREMENT PROPOSED AREA REQUIRED
Single-Family 5,000 2,500
Two-Family 8,000 5,000
Multi-Family (Must have at least 3 units)3,000 (9,000 for first 3)2,500 (7,500 for first 3)
Single-Family Attached/Row House 3,000 (9,000 for first 3)1,500 (4,500 for first 3)
(Must have at least 3 units)
Cottage Development (New Form)n/a 1,500
Tiny House (New Form)n/a 1,500
With these changes to lot area, approximately 39% or 345 of the 887 residential RMF-30 properties
would become eligible to add at least one more unit in addition to the existing units(s) on the
property (excluding the addition of tiny houses). The eligibility maps in Attachment B highlight
these eligible parcels in green. Keep in mind that other factors may limit whether or not additional
units can be added on a lot including accommodating required setbacks, lot coverage, building and
fire code regulations, etc. Additionally, smaller lot size requirements should also promote smaller
and more affordable housing units. The City does acknowledge that smaller lot sizes may put
additional development pressure on lots with single-family homes, which is why some mechanisms
to limit demolition are being introduced as detailed in the changes below.
4. Removal of Required Lot Width –
Allow other building requirements to
drive lot width and remove this zoning
barrier to multi-family housing
development.
In addition to required lot area, Salt Lake
City’s Zoning Ordinance also requires that lots
be a certain width for different land uses.
Currently, lots are required to be at least 80-
100 feet wide in the City’s Multi-Family
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 33
Residential (RMF) zoning districts to accommodate a new multi-family use (3 or more housing
units). The City has found that these current requirements do not reflect the established lot
width patterns in the RMF zoning districts as discussed in the Closer Look at RMF-30 section of
this report and can, ultimately, impede housing development. For example, the vacant lot
pictured above could not be developed with more than three units as it does not have 80 feet of
lot width even though it meets the minimum lot size requirements.
Many other standards are in place that encourage adequate lot widths and spacing between
buildings including required side yard setbacks, driveway widths and building code standards.
Therefore, per the proposed updates, minimum lot width requirements would be removed.
5.More Than One Principal Structure On A Lot –
Allow for historic development pattern to occur
and encourage creative building arrangements.
Constructing more than one principal structure on a lot is
currently not permitted in RMF districts, unless both
structures have public street frontage. The idea behind this
is partly to discourage new buildings with poor access and
little visibility for general safety purposes. However, Salt
Lake City’s deeper lots tend to have a significant amount of
underutilized land towards their rear and can have more
than adequate access and visibility. Other zoning, building code, and fire regulations besides
this limitation on multiple structures on a lot also work together to ensure adequate access and
visibility. Constructing more than one building on a lot is characteristic of the historic
development pattern and tends to encourage creative housing developments. Today, planned
development approval is required for multiple structures on a lot. Therefore, provided that the
additional structures meet all other zoning/city department standards, it is being proposed that
more than one principal structure be permitted on all lots in the RMF-30 zoning district.
6 & 7 – Mechanisms to Limit Demolition
Unit Bonus for the Maintenance of Existing Structures – Incentivize the
retention of existing structures and creative housing solutions. In an effort to
maintain existing and/or affordable housing stock in the RMF-30 zone – particularly historic
or character-contributing buildings – while allowing for some new development, a unit
bonus is being proposed to apply when housing is retained. Because the updates to lot area
requirements may allow additional units to be added on a lot, this unit bonus will apply
when a building permit is applied for to add an additional housing unit(s) to an existing
structure – internal or external – that meets lot area requirements and the existing structure
on the lot is retained. The idea is that this unit bonus would encourage units to be
added onto or within existing structures (single-family homes in particular) as
opposed to demolishing the existing structure and rebuilding fewer units than
what could be achieved with the bonus. One bonus unit will be granted for the
retention of a single-family home or duplex and two bonus units will be grated for the
retention of multi-family buildings (3 or more units).
Lot Width Maximum – Discurage land banking and the demolition of
exsting structures. In an effort to minimize of collection of multiple parcels or “land
banking” to accommodate large developments, a lot width maximum is proposed that
would limit the widths of new lots to 110 feet wide or less. The maximum would be
applied to the development as a whole as opposed to individual lots within a
development. Based on average lots widths in the RMF-30 district, this would typically
prevent the consolidation of more than two parcels, or three at the very most.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 34
KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The following key considerations have been identified for the
Planning Commission’s review and potential discussion.
#1. Compliance with Citywide Master Plans
Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan (2018-2022)
The Growing SLC Housing Plan “outlines…solutions…[for reaching a point] where all residents,
current and prospective, regardless of race, age, economic status, or physical ability can find a
place to call home. To achieve this goal, the City’s housing policy must address issues of
affordability at the root cause, creating long-term solutions for increasing the housing supply,
expanding housing opportunities throughout the city, addressing systemic failures in the rental
market, and preserving our existing units” (p. 9). The proposed text amendments directly
support the following priorities identified in Growing SLC:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing market.
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
o 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along
significant transportation routes.
“Land use decisions of the 1990s came about as a reaction to the gradual
population decline that occurred over the preceding three decades.
Conversely, the city’s population has grown by 20 percent in the last two
decades, (the fastest rate of growth in nearly a century) presenting a need
for a fundamentally different approach. Household type and makeup has
also significantly changed to reflect smaller household sizes in the city.
Increasing flexibility around dimensional requirements and code
definitions will reduce barriers to housing construction that are
unnecessary for achieving city goals, such as neighborhood preservation. A
concentrated zoning and land use review is warranted to address these
critical issues and to refine code so that it focuses on form and scale of
development rather than intended use” (p. 18).
o 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase
housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional
units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.
“In-fill ordinances provide both property owners and developers with options
to increase the number of units on particular parcels throughout the city. Such
options would also help restore the “missing middle” housing types where new
construction has principally been limited to single-family homes and multi-
story apartment buildings for decades. Missing middle housing types are those
that current zoning practices have either dramatically reduced or eliminated
altogether: accessory dwelling units, duplexes, tri-plexes, small multi-plexes,
courtyard cottages and bungalows, row houses, and small apartment
buildings. Finding a place for these housing types throughout the city means
more housing options in Salt Lake City, and restoring choices for a wider
variety of household sizes, from seniors to young families.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 35
Apart from traditional infill ordinances, responding to the unusual age,
form, and shape of housing stock should be addressed and leveraged to
add incremental density in existing structures. This would include
options for lot subdivision where there is ample space to build an
additional home on a property or alternatively expand rental
opportunities in existing structures” (p. 19).
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
o 1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for
those developers constructing new affordable units.
“Providing developers who build affordable units with a fast-tracked
permitting process will decrease the cost of those projects, increasing the
likelihood that such projects make it to the market. The process will
empower the administration with the authority to waive fees and expedite
City procedures” (p. 21).
Objective 3. Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.
o 1.3.1 Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as
construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form,
function, and maintenance.
“Additionally, the City will support the development of new or
underutilized housing types that meet the unique needs of the diverse
communities that live in Salt Lake City. This has already begun with
projects that focus on a significant mix of resident incomes and micro-
units and could be expanded to include other housing types. Efforts to
develop well-designed and well-built homes that serve the changing
needs of residents will improve housing choice into the future” (p. 22).
Plan Salt Lake (2015):
Plan Salt Lake identifies multiple ‘Guiding Principles,’ ‘Targets,’ and ‘Initiatives’ to help
the city achieve its vision over the next 25 years. This project supports the following:
Guiding Principle 1/Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunity for
social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein.
Initiatives:
3. Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out
their daily lives.
5. Support policies that provides people a choice to stay in their
home and neighborhood as they grow older and household
demographics change.
7. Promote accessible neighborhood services and amenities,
including parks, natural lands, and schools.
9. Provide opportunities for and promotion of social interaction.
Guiding Principle 2/Growth: Growing responsibly, while providing people with
choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 36
Initiatives:
1. Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and
amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors.
3. Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
6. Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population.
Guiding Principle 3/Housing: Access to a wide variety of housing types for all
income levels throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and
responding to changing demographics.
Initiatives:
2. Increase the number of medium density housing types
and options.
3. Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place.
4. Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure
and services that have the potential to be people-oriented.
5. Enable moderate density increases within existing
neighborhoods where appropriate.
Salt Lake City Council’s 20 Guiding Principles on Housing
Development (2017)
Principal 6 – Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: i. Avoiding
displacement of existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and ii.
Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
Principal 8 – Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds
and incomes.
Principal 16 – Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply
including housing types that the private market does not sufficiently provide
such as family housing in the downtown area, innovative housing types, missing
middle housing and middle- to low-income apartments.
As documented above, the proposed text amendments are in line with goals and
objectives outlined in the City’s housing plan. Current lot area and width standards in
place make it difficult to develop multi-family housing in the city’s multi-family
zoning districts – let alone multi-family development that’s compatible with lower-
scale neighborhoods. Yet, not only does the city need more housing in general, there is
an increasing demand among millennials and baby boomers alike for smaller,
accessible units of higher quality construction that are easier to maintain. The
proposed text amendments aim not only remove restrictive zoning barriers to new
housing development that the city needs, but to facilitate missing-middle type housing
in walkable, desirable neighborhoods where RMF districts tend to be located.
#2. Community Concerns – The following concerns regarding the proposed text
amendments were voiced by the community throughout the RMF-30 engagement
process:
Demolition of Existing Housing. With any proposal that allows more housing density in an area,
there tends to be concern that existing historic and/or affordable housing will be demolished to make way
for larger more expensive housing developments. This is a legitimate concern that has been
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 37
raised by multiple community members throughout the engagement process. At the same time,
multi-family zoning districts should allow multi-family development on an average site lot. Per
current standards, close to half of the existing lots zoned RMF-30 are less than 6,000 square feet in
area and couldn’t accommodate anything more than a single dwelling unit. Close to three-quarters of
the lots are less than 8,000 square feet in area and couldn’t accommodate anything more than two
units or a duplex. As we see with historic multi-family development already in place throughout the
city, the average size lot in the RMF-30 district of 6,114 square feet can and should be able to
accommodate more than a single-family home. With all of this in mind, a delicate balance needs to
be struck between allowing more housing on adequately sized lots and promoting the preservation of
existing structures, which is what this proposal aims to achieve.
First, close to a third of lots zoned RMF-30 are located in a local historic district where demolition of
structures must be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Second, lot area requirements have
been strategically reduced the most for single and two-family development (2,500 to 3,000 square-foot
reduction), as well as compatible multi-family development including cottage developments, row houses
and tiny houses (1,500 square foot reduction). Though compatible, row houses and cottage developments
must meet many other design, building code and fire code regulations. Therefore, though the lot area
requirements have been reduced the most for these forms, staff does not anticipate widespread
demolition to accommodate these forms because they are more difficult to construct. Third, lot area has
only been reduced by 500 square feet for multi-family building forms with three or more units. Not only
does this promote the smaller building forms, but the proposed 2,500 square feet per unit also remains in
line with the Central Community’s Master Plan future land use designation for Low Medium Density
Residential of 20 units per acre or 2,178 square feet of lot area per unit. Staff anticipates decreasing lot
area requirements further for the RMF-35, -45, and -75 districts as these areas area meant to
accommodate higher density.
Reducing lot area requirements also makes the proposed density bonus more functional. If an
existing lot could accommodate one more unit with the proposed changes to lot area – which is the
case of 299 lots zoned RMF-30 with single-family homes – the lot could then have two more units if
the existing structure is preserved. This incentive aligns directly with the City’s Housing Plan to “lot
subdivision where there is ample space to build an additional home on a property or alternatively
expand rental opportunities in existing structures” (p. 19). Finally, the proposed lot width
maximum was born directly out of the need to limit land banking and subsequent demolition. Based
on average lot width, this maximum would typically prevent more than three lots from being
consolidated into one, and subsequently three existing units from being demolished.
Affordable Housing Development. Questions were often asked regarding how these text
amendments work to promote affordable housing development throughout the engagement process.
These amendments do not directly facilitate affordable units per the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) standards3. However, by reducing required lot size per unit, units
3 Housing Affordability - Is the level of homeowner or rental housing prices relative to the level of household income. Housing
is considered affordable, when a household is paying no more than 30% of their total gross income towards housing expenses;
rent or mortgage and utilities. The 30% of income standard is a widely used and accepted measure of the extent of housing
affordability problems across the country. This standard applies to households of any income level.
Affordable Housing - Is government-subsidized housing for low-income households. A residential unit is generally considered
affordable if the household pays 30% or less of their total gross income towards rent, for eligible households with low, very-low and
extremely-low incomes, including low-wage working families, seniors on fixed incomes, veterans, people with disabilities
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 38
themselves might also be smaller and, in turn, more affordable. The three housing types that are
being promoted with this amendment including cottage developments, row houses and tiny
houses also tend to have smaller footprints. More than anything, these amendments are aimed
at facilitating new multi-family housing in general. A greater supply of market rate housing may
free up the number of affordable or mid-priced units for those who truly qualify for them. As the
City’s Housing Plan acknowledges, introducing flexible zoning regulations is merely a piece of
the affordable housing puzzle and the Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development has
many other programs in place that work to not only promote, but preserve affordable housing.
Preservation of Allen Park. Multiple concerns have been raised regarding the preservation
of Allen Park, which is a large 5-acre parcel located across from Westminster College at
approximately 1700 South and 1300 East and zoned RMF-30. While open space is certainly
important to preserve, the park is private property that could currently be redeveloped with
housing without the proposed text amendments. Per current standards, 72 multi-family units
could be constructed on the 5-acre lot based on lot area requirements alone. Per proposed
standards, 87 multi-family units could be constructed; though, if row house or cottage units
were to be development this allowance would increase to 145 units at 1,500 square feet per unit.
However, a large stream runs through the property that is protected by riparian corridor
regulations, which do not permit principal structures within 50 feet on either side of the
stream’s waterline. Though more units could be built under the proposed text amendments, any
future development would still be greatly limited due to these riparian regulations.
Parking Requirements. Concerns from community members regarding parking
requirements go both ways – current requirements are either too much or not enough. The East
Central Community Council in particular, where many RMF-30 parcels are located, voiced
multiple concerns regarding the lack of street parking in their neighborhoods. Because of this,
they do not believe new developments should receive parking reductions for completing
transportation demand management strategies. Others, including the Historic Landmark
Commission, expressed that if parking requirements are not reduced for multi-family housing,
missing-middle-type housing might not be feasible as there’s simply not enough space on a lot
to accommodate multiple parking stalls and multiple housing units.
Parking will not be updated as a part of this zoning text amendment; however, the parking
chapter is being updated at this time per a different text amendment. Staff will work together
closely to see how parking can be best accommodate within the city’s RMF districts.
NEXT STEPS:
Because staff does want to obtain feedback from both the Planning Commission and the public
at this time, but also acknowledges that additional fine-tuning must be done to the proposed
text amendments, it is recommended that the Planning Commission keep table petition
PLNPCM2019-00313 regarding updates to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
Zoning District and make a positive or negative recommendation to City Council at a later date
once the proposed text amendments have been finalized.
and those experiencing homeless. There are different kinds of affordable units, including public housing,
voucher-subsidized units, or income restricted units.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 39
ATTACHMENT C: INFORMATIONAL MAPS/PHOTOS
1.RMF-30 Zoning Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 40
2. All Multi-Family Residential (RMF) Zoning Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 41
3. RMF-30 Zones in Local Historic Districts
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 42
4. Eligibility Maps (Updated 9/25/2019)
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 43
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 44
Existing Building Types Zoned RMF
1. Single-Family
637 E. 900 South
845 S. Green St.
2. Two-Family
858 S. Roberta St.
3. Multi-Family (proposed to be limited to 8 units)
682 E. 700 South 836 S. 500 East
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 45
4. Row House
661 S. 500 East
5. Sideways Row House
661 S. Green St.
6. Cottage Development
825 S. 800 East
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 46
ATTACHMENT D: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
As per section 21A.50.050, a decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general
amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not
controlled by any one standard.
Factor Finding Rationale
1. Whether a proposed Complies As outlined above in the ‘Key
text amendment is Considerations’ section of the June
consistent with the 26th Planning Commission staff
purposes, goals,report, the proposed text
objectives, and amendments support multiple
policies of the city as principles and initiatives of Plan
stated through its Salt Lake (2015).
various adopted
planning documents;In addition, these amendments
were born from the immediate
need to implement the recently-
adopted Growing SLC housing
plan.
Staff finds that the proposed text
amendments are consistent with
City purposes, goals, and policies.
2. Whether a Complies The proposed text amendments
proposed text advance the purpose and intent
amendment furthers of the Zoning Ordinance,
the specific purpose specifically the following:
statements of the
zoning ordinance;..to promote the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the
present and future inhabitants
of Salt Lake City, to implement
the adopted plans of the city…
This title is, in addition,
intended to:
C. Provide adequate light and
air;
D. Classify land uses and
distribute land development and
utilization;
G. Foster the city’s industrial,
business and residential
development.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 47
The proposed amendments
further the purpose and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance by
allowing/fostering well-designed
multi-family residential building
forms on adequately sized lots in
the city.
3. Whether a proposed text Complies The proposed zoning standards
amendment is consistent are in line with development
with the purposes and principals within the local historic
provisions of any applicable overlay, especially in terms of
overlay zoning districts compatible development.
which may impose Mechanisms are also being
additional standards;proposed to limit demolition of
existing structures outside of the
local historic overlays.
4. The extent to which a Complies The proposed text amendments
proposed text amendment directly support the Growing SLC
implements best current,housing plan, which is a forward-
thinking document when it comes toprofessional practices of addressing affordable housing for allurban planning and design.residents, now and into the future as
the City continues to grow.
The amendments propose to use
elements of a form based code, which
has proven success in fostering well-
designed, pedestrian-friendly
communities across the nation.
Additionally, the American Planning
Association (APA) recently published
a Housing Policy Guide on June 4,
2019. The APA advocates for public
policies that create just, healthy, and
prosperous communities that expand
opportunity for all through good
planning and their advocacy is based
on adopted positions and principles
contained in policy guides. Position 1
within the Housing Policy Guide
aligns directly with the proposed text
amendments as follows:
POSITION 1 – Modernize state and local laws to ensure housing opportunities
are available, accessible, and affordable to all.
Position 1B – The American Planning Association and its Chapters and Divisions support the
modernization of local zoning bylaws and ordinances to increase housing production, while
taking local context and conditions into account. While challenging to confront and, ultimately,
amend or dismantle exclusionary zoning, rules, and practices, planners must take the lead in
modernizing zoning. Local jurisdictions should adopt bylaws or ordinances, policies,
and incentives that facilitate a range of housing types and densities and that serve a
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 48
diversity of housing needs. Local jurisdictions should review and modernize bylaws
and ordinances and planners need resources to make updates happen and to ensure
adequate public engagement occurs. Updates to bylaws and ordinances should
address mixed use and multifamily development, including affordability.
Updates should also include rezoning for higher densities where there may be
existing lower densities. Local jurisdictions should consider reducing or
eliminating minimum lot size requirements, reducing minimum dwelling unit
requirements, allowing greater height and density and reducing or eliminating
off-street minimum parking requirements, and they should specifically identify and
eliminate or minimize regulatory obstacles to the establishment of accessory dwelling units,
whether attached to or detached from the principal dwelling unit. Local jurisdictions should
also allow for and encourage adaptive reuse and use conversions to encourage housing
production. Local jurisdictions should also research and analyze, and as part of any zoning
amendment, preempt all restrictive covenants and barriers to fair housing and access to
housing choice, including barriers to on-street, overnight parking.
Location should be addressed without compromising equity or resiliency. Local
jurisdictions should consider incorporating into bylaws and ordinances transit-
oriented development principles and principles that address the importance of
housing location in relation to access and proximity to schools, jobs, parks,
transportation, and other critical amenities and resources. States should consider
moving to a Housing + Transportation Index when determining affordability.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 49
ATTACHMENT E: CENTRAL CITY AND
PRESERVATION MASTER PLAN RESPONSES
RMF-30 Central Community Master Plan Response
Future Land Use
Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units/acre)
Low Medium Density Residential (10-20 dwelling units/acre)
Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units/acre)
*The proposed RMF-30 zoning amendment does lower the square footage requirement for dwelling
units to 2,000 square feet. This averages to 21 dwelling units per acre. This average falls between the
Low Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, as defined within the Central
Community Master Plan. The Central Community Master Plan anticipates a variety of density and zoning
solutions that account for both Low Medium and Medium Density Residential future land uses.
Livable communities and neighborhoods
A variety of residential land use supports all types of housing and the affordability of the housing
stock.
o While this master plan notes that it supports all types of housing and the affordability of
the housing stock, it has primarily created and preserved single-family residential
housing. The proposed RMF-30 amendments create more flexibility to develop and add
additional dwelling units to existing structures, sites and for new development. The
proposed amendments support and promote a variety of residential land use types and
will ideally create and preserve the affordability of existing and new units.
Preservation of the housing stock is an integral part of maintaining neighborhood character.
o The amendment has built in a bonus unit for the preservation of existing residential
structures. As some of the existing housing stock is replaced with new development,
the amendments have included design standards to ensure quality construction and
neighborhood compatibility.
The appropriate transition of multi-family housing with mixed land uses in designated
areas supports sustainable development within the community.
*The RMF-30 amendments include incentives for preservation of existing structures. This incentive is
provided to encourage flexibility for the ability to add units, while still maintaining an existing principal
structure. Ideally, this incentive would preserve structures, as well as affordable and market rate units.
Compatible development is land uses and structures that are designed and located in a manner
consistent with the development patterns, building masses and character of the area in which they
are located.
*The RMF-30 amendments include design standards for developed building forms that are common and
anticipated for the neighborhoods that contain RMF-30 zoning. The height and number of units are
limited to reduce the impact of any new development. The limitation of the number of units per multi-
family structure will diminish the size of any multi-family development. Additionally, limiting the
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 50
maximum number of dwelling units within one structure ensures compatible development
and consistency within neighborhoods.
Residents, property owners and business owners provided information to create the following definition
for Central Community neighborhoods:
A diversified livable neighborhood in the Central Community is one where; education and
recreational resources are within walking distances, shopping and employment is close and
accessible, pedestrian mobility is safe and a priority, the historic neighborhood fabric is
respected and neighborhoods have integrity and identifiable characteristics.
*The amendments promote the Central Community neighborhood definition by providing additional
opportunities for growth, density and compatible development. The amendments provide for flexibility
on lots with existing principal structures, as well as new development. The inclusion of design
standards provides enough creativity for contemporary development, while ensuring compatible
development within the well-established historic area of Salt Lake City. The addition of new units and
development, will create more opportunities for a greater number of individuals.
Central City neighborhood planning area
Residential
Encourage the expansion of the housing stock in ways that are compatible with the historic
character of the neighborhood.
o The integration of design standards, unit bonus and limitation of number of units
promotes this goal.
Discourage demolition or loss of housing and the deterioration in the condition of housing units.
o The preservation incentive incorporated within these amendments, provide for
additional units when the principal structure is preserved. This creates the ability to
incentivize the preservation of housing stock and historic structures.
Provide more three and four bedroom housing units and public recreational
amenities, especially for children.
o This is not part of the RMF-30 amendments.
Ensure that land-use policies reflect a respect for the eclectic architectural character so that this
area does not remain as just an interim zone between Downtown and more desirable
neighborhoods to the east and north.
o The RMF-30 amendments include design standards that reflect the key features of the
eclectic architectural character of the RMF-30 zoning district. Additionally, the design
standards are not prescriptive. The standards provide a framework for architects,
homeowners and developers to integrate features commonly found within the
neighborhood and to incorporate contemporary aspects that reflect their creativity
and design goals. This zoning district will function as an interim between single-family
residential zoning and the higher density zoning. It contains relatively low scale
development opportunity.
Ensure that historic preservation is the priority in this area.
o A majority of this neighborhood planning area is located within the Central City Local
Historic District. This ensures preservation of the contributing structures within the local
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 51
historic district. Additionally, all additions, new development or alterations are subject
to historic overlay requirements found in 21A.34. The remaining area is generally
located within the National Historic District. The creation and addition of the bonus
unit incentive was to offer an additional unit when preserving an existing residential
structure.
Place special emphasis on buffers, transition zones or insulation to minimize negative
impacts from incompatible uses.
o The proposed variety of uses and building forms are compatible and anticipated for
the subject area. The provided setbacks do not vary from the anticipated separation.
East Central North neighborhood planning area
Residential
Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the
neighborhood’s residential character.
o The density is in line with the anticipated number of dwelling units per acre. The
amendments do conserve the neighborhood’s residential character by promoting lower
scale and limitation on density per building form.
Ensure new multi-family development is carefully sited, well designed, and compatible in scale.
o The amendments include design standards that incorporate compatibility of materials,
glazing, entry features and siting.
Provide more affordable housing (owner occupied and rental).
o This is an aspect that is generally left to Housing and Neighborhood Development;
however, with the proposed amendments, planning has decreased the square footage
required for development. The decreased square footage, in theory, should decrease
the cost of the units for rent or purchase. Additionally, with the creation of an
administrative review for units without street frontage and unit bonuses, the land cost
should decrease and the number of units should increase.
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. Urban design and historic preservation neighborhood character and historical integrity,
especially when dealing with residential land uses in historic districts.
The Central Community Master Plan supports neighborhood and community residential development
as an extension of the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000). The Community Housing Plan
provides information, policies, and implementation for the following areas:
Housing stock, preservation, rehabilitation and
replacement Housing design
Affordable and transitional housing
The revised housing plan has been adopted and is being implemented. Part of the Five Year Housing
Plan, the Planning Division has been tasked with eliminating zoning barriers to housing
development. The proposed amendments reflect the goals established in the Five Year Housing
Plan.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 52
The policies also provide an opportunity to mix land uses, thus giving Central Community residents
a broader choice of residential living.
Low-Density Residential: There are two low-density residential land use designations, low-density and
low/medium density.
Low-density residential (1-15 dwelling units/acre)
This land use designation allows moderate sized lots (i.e., 3,000-10,000 square feet) where single-family
detached homes are the dominant land use. Low-density includes single-family attached, and detached
dwellings as permissible on a single residential lot subject to zoning.
Low/Medium-Density Residential (10-20 dwelling units/acre)
This land use designation allows zero lot line subdivision development, single-family detached
residences on small lots (i.e., 2,500-5000 square feet per individual lots), and townhouses.
Low/medium-density residential areas are mainly low-density neighborhoods containing a broad mix
of dwelling units ranging from single family detached to single family attached dwelling units (three or
more units per structure).
Residential land use goals
Encourage the creation and maintenance of a variety of housing opportunities that meet social
needs and income levels of a diverse population.
o The proposed amendments encourage the variety of housing types. With the reduction
of lot area requirements and the introduction of multiple structures on one lot and the
bonus unit allowance, some units should become attainable to a variety of income
levels.
Ensure preservation of low-density residential neighborhoods.
o No amendments are proposed for the R-1 or R-2 districts, as part of this project.
Ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale,
character, and density.
o The amendments include small scale, no taller than 30 feet, with limited number of
units. This ensures that any new development will be compatible with the existing
neighborhoods.
Discourage any compromise to the livability, charm, and safety of the neighborhoods or to
the sense of a healthy community.
Policy RLU 1.0 Based on the Future Land Use map, use residential zoning to establish and maintain
a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a diverse population.
RLU-1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher
density residential and commercial uses.
o The RMF-30 amendments are not considered high density and will primarily effect the
parcels already zoned RMF-30.
RLU-1.2 Provide opportunities for medium-density housing in areas between the Central
Business District and lower-density neighborhoods and in areas where small multi-family
dwellings are compatible.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 53
RLU-1.4 Preserve the character of the inner-block courts.
RLU-1.6 Encourage coordination between the Future Land Use map, zoning ordinances, and the
Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan.
o The proposed amendments relied heavily on the Five Year Housing Plan goals and
policies.
RLU-1.7 Ensure that future amendments to the zoning map or text of the zoning ordinance do
not result in a significant amount of nonconforming land uses.
Policy RLU-3.0 Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the
character of the neighborhoods of the Central Community.
RLU-3.1 Encourage residential land developers to build housing that provides residential
opportunities for a range of income levels, age groups, and family size.
RLU-3.2 Encourage a mix of affordable and market-rate housing for owner occupancy
throughout the Central Community. Encourage a mix of rental properties for those who cannot
afford or do not choose home ownership.
o The decrease of the square footage requirement per dwelling unit should decrease the
cost of units. While this does not guarantee the creation of affordable housing units, it
should aid in the number of units added to the market. In theory, adding more
housing stock should help to stabilize the cost and ensure that there are units
available to a variety of income levels.
Community Preservation Plan
Regulations and Incentives
ADOPT A WIDER RANGE OF PRESERVAITON TOOLS
The City’s historic preservation regulations consist primarily of the historic overlay zoning regulations
and the residential district design guidelines, which apply only to locally designated Landmark Sites and
locally designated historic districts. While these are working generally well, there is a need for a broader
range of tools to complement the existing regulations and guidelines. This plan proposed that the City
expand the tools available for preserving history and character in the City. Specific tools suggested are
stricter demolition regulations, more types of guidelines and more incentives in the form of regulatory,
financial and procedural. In addition, the plan identifies the need for additional types of regulatory tools
to preserve and stabilize neighborhood character.
The RMF-30 integrates a broader range of tools to encourage and incentivize preservation of existing
structures within National Historic Districts, as well as Local Historic Districts. The density bonus
does not guarantee the preservation of all residential structures within the National Historic District;
however, it does provide an incentive to preserve an existing residential structure. This creates
preservation tool integrated into the base zoning district.
LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Listing in the National Register is honorific. Designation in the National Register does not impose any
regulations or restrictions on the owner regarding the maintenance of their property, but does qualify
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 54
the owner to take advantage of federal and state tax incentives as well as Utah Heritage Foundation’s
Revolving Loan Fund, if qualified. See Appendix A for the list of National Register Districts and Sites in
Salt Lake City as of November 2011. With the available tax credits, the National Register program
provides a great opportunity to incentivize property owners to reinvest in their historic homes which
results in increased housing rehabilitation of various eligible neighborhoods and structures throughout
Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City does not have the authority to review changes, demolitions or modifications within
National Historic Districts to the same degree as those within Local Historic Districts. The language
proposed for the RMF-30 zoning district creates an incentive to preserve structures by adding a density
bonus. The density bonus can be added in a variety of methods, all of which are clarified within the
proposed language, and will ensure that any existing eligible structure will remain as such.
Density Bonuses
This plan discusses TDR
Action 1. Amend the zoning regulations to allow density bonuses, in the form of an additional unit, for
structures in the local historic district or a Landmark Site which are zoned multi-family on lots that
would not otherwise allow additional units due to size.
The RMF-30 integrates a broader range of tools to encourage and incentivize preservation of existing
structures within National Historic Districts, as well as Local Historic Districts. The density bonus
does not guarantee the preservation of all residential structures within the National Historic District;
however, it does provide an incentive to preserve an existing residential structure. This creates
preservation tool integrated into the base zoning district.
Policy 6.1a: Historic Preservation is a primary tool to implement the sustainable goals of Salt Lake City.
Staff is encouraging sustainability through incentivizing the preservation of existing principal structures.
Policy 6.5a: Ensure zoning supports the retention and reuse of existing historic apartment and non-
residential buildings.
The RMF-30 integrates a broader range of tools to encourage and incentivize preservation of existing
structures within National Historic Districts, as well as Local Historic Districts. The density bonus
does not guarantee the preservation of all residential structures within the National Historic District;
however, it does provide an incentive to preserve an existing residential structure. This creates
preservation tool integrated into the base zoning district.
Action 1: Ensure Compatible Zoning
Analyze the underlying zoning of existing designated historic structures and those in designated historic
districts, both local and national, to ensure the zoning supports the preservation of the site.
Currently, the existing RMF-30 zoning district primarily creates single-family development. Staff has been
directed to eliminate zoning barriers within the RMF zoning districts to promote additional housing stock.
The main zoning barrier that staff identified was the minimum lot requirements for development. This
amendment reduces the lot width and lot area required for single-family, single-family attached, duplex and
multi-family development. In addition to reducing lot requirements, Staff has created a
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 55
bonus unit for properties that retain existing structures. The goal of reducing the lot requirements
and incentivizing preservation was to strike a balance between creating additional housing stock and
preserving neighborhood character.
Action 2: Create zoning incentives, including the possible increase in density, for historic structures,
especially in higher intensive zoning districts and/or along arterial roads and transit corridors near
transit stations that would encourage preservation and maintenance of historic structures while
preventing or discouraging their demolition.
The RMF-30 integrates a broader range of tools to encourage and incentivize preservation of existing
structures within National Historic Districts, as well as Local Historic Districts. The density bonus
does not guarantee the preservation of all residential structures within the National Historic District;
however, it does provide an incentive to preserve an existing residential structure. This creates
preservation tool integrated into the base zoning district.
Policy 6.5e: allow the development of additional dwelling units as an incentive for preservation of
historic structures.
The RMF-30 integrates a broader range of tools to encourage and incentivize preservation of existing
structures within National Historic Districts, as well as Local Historic Districts. The density bonus
does not guarantee the preservation of all residential structures within the National Historic District;
however, it does provide an incentive to preserve an existing residential structure. This creates
preservation tool integrated into the base zoning district.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 56
ATTACHMENT F: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Notice to Community/Neighborhood Councils:
Recognized community-based organizations that contain land zoned RMF-30 were notified of
the proposed text amendments via email on February 13, 2019. Upon their request, the changes
were presented at the Sugar House Land Use Committee’s March 18th meeting, the East Central
Community Council’s March 21st meeting and the Central City Community Council’s April 3rd
meeting. No other councils requested a presentation. Formal comments received from the
council chairs have been attached.
Open House:
All recognized community-based organizations were also notified of the proposed text
amendments via Open House notices sent on February 14th, 2019. Because these zoning text
amendments impact the different areas of the city and not one specific Community or
Neighborhood Council, an Open House was held on February 26th, 2019 at the Salt Lake City’s
downtown public library. All written comments received have been attached.
Focus Group: A focus group with local professionals who have worked in RMF-30 areas previously
was held on April 2, 2019. Many felt that the proposed design standards would drive up the cost of
units as things like durable building materials and glass drive up the cost of construction. In general,
the more requirements and processes the higher the cost of their units – costs get transferred to the
buyer or renter. They also suggested clarifying some of the design standards. At times they can be
vague and it’s unclear if a certain design or material would qualify.
In terms of the proposed unit bonus, some were enthusiastic about working with existing
structures while others only work with new construction. The restoration of existing units can
also be expensive and drive up costs. It is, however, more profitable to build/restore smaller
units. Most were on board with all of the new proposed building forms, especially tiny homes.
Parking and fire regulations are two things that could stop this kind of infill development. They
suggested reduced parking requirements for preserving a unit and reduced parking in general.
Planning Commission Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice websites on
June 14th, 2019.
Newspaper notice ran on June 15th, 2019.
Public Input:
Throughout the engagement process, there has been general public input both in favor and
against the proposed text amendments. Community concerns that were heard the most have
been described under the Key Considerations section of this report. Formal comments
submitted by community members have been included as a part of this attachment below.
Commission Briefings:
The following points and recommendations were made during briefings with the Planning
Commission and Historic Landmark Commission where they were asked for their direct
feedback on the proposed changes.
PC Briefing – December 12, 2018
Second-floor balconies may not an appropriate design requirement in low density
residential zoning districts like RMF-30
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 57
Requiring certain building forms and design standards may counteract the a goal of
facilitating affordable housing – may be too restrictive
The 20% glass requirements on front facades may be too
high Cottage units may be limited further in size
General interest in allowing tiny house building forms on smaller size lots
Should somehow mitigate the impact of long interior walls of side oriented row houses –
interior walls are also very visible from the public way
Not confident in allowing side oriented row houses per more design guidelines and
administrative review alone because design is objective and these forms may need a
closer level Commission review
Re-review minimum lot width requirements
Re-review standards for creating lots without public streets frontage
Access easements for lots without public street frontage should be recorded on the
plat Suggested looking into decreasing lot area requirements for multi-family uses
Suggested having different standards for lots abutting single-family zoning
districts rezone certain areas to be more or less dense
Over time, Central City might all be up-zoned
Other zoning standards could be relaxed when buildings are preserved – amount of
vegetation in the park strip could be relaxed
HLC Briefing – May 2, 2019
Two parking spaces per unit is too high for cottage developments
Parking can drive an entire development – on the cusp of radical change in terms of
living preferences and parking
May utilize a shared parking arrangement in between buildings on a site
EIFS isn’t always a bad material – can be getting into the minutia by regulating
EIFS Stucco, Hardie plank, Hardie lap and any cementitious siding can work well
Existing building envelopes, especially in terms of scale and form, should be
maintained Side oriented row houses can have a negative impact on adjacent neighbors
New driveways too close to property lines can have negative impact on historic homes
Side oriented row houses should have smaller side yard setbacks than 10’ and 10’
Generally in favor of tiny house forms
Unit bonus shouldn’t create an explosion of housing as some might think
Planning Commission Public Hearing – June 26,
2019 Commissioners’ Comments
Introduction of tiny homes may break up the existing building typology in RMF districts
Longer building walls of sideways row houses should be broken up to reduce the impact
on neighbors, but requiring the delineation of each unit is too prescriptive
RMF-30 should be somewhat of a transitional zoning district from single-family
neighborhoods to more urban areas
Inquired about the effects of supply and demand on affordable housing
Asked if proposed lot area requirements are bold enough to significantly increase housing stock
Discussed whether certain RMF-30 areas should be downzoned to project historic properties
Discussed if existing housing is being demolished and replaced with fewer, more expensive
units – what is currently happing in the city?
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 58
Public Comments
Allowing sideways row houses and cottages by right is cutting out community
involvement More should be done to require affordable multi-family units
There should be a penalty for demolishing housing without replacement (housing mitigation) The
RMF-30 lot area and lot width requirements in place are more effective at protecting
historic buildings than the historic overlay
Financial factors are not being taken into consideration with proposed text
amendments It may not be feasible to build behind a unit due to high construction costs
The proposed design standards won’t work to achieve better design
The city does not know what it has in vacant properties
The city has not addressed losing unsubsidized affordable
units Central City Master Plan has not been addressed
The downzone of properties across the city in 1995 has inadvertently protected historic
and affordable units
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 59
Ian Kaplan via email – 2/14/2019
I had time over the break to review the proposed changes to the RMF zone and have some
feedback for you from the architecture/development side. I will be present at the public
hearings to voice these matters, but thought it could be of potential use as the document
changes prior to public comment.
1. Parking Reductions for Bonus Units/Row-houses. There is no mention of this - but in
order to actually accomplish the density you're looking for in the tight lots there needs to
be a 1 Stall/Unit regardless of bed count. Many historic examples of cottage style
development don't have parking at all and it's the only way they work on tight lots. The
proximity to transit helps, but anything outside of transit will be undevelopable.
2. Parking Reductions for preserving existing structures. It's often very difficult to provide
additional parking for increased density if preserving the existing structure is a
priority. This is where most infill projects hit a road block. Especially if they do not
have an Alleyway for access.
3. Tandem Parking Regulations. For lots with access to an alley (and without) - tandem
parking can be a great way to increase density and provide additional parking for 2+
bedroom units. It gives the designer a lot more flexibility in site layout.
4. Side Yard Setbacks for Rowhouses. More than half of the RMF-30 lots are between 31-
50' wide. With a required side yard setback of 10' for rowhouses, that leave's 30' width
for a building. However, take into account a 24' backup for a car coming out of a
garage and add that to the 10' setback, and now you only have room for a 16' deep
garage stall. That makes more than half of these lots un-developable for the rowhouse.
I would suggest a wedding cake setback above 1st story leaving 3' req'd setbacks on the
ground floor and 5-8' above that. It would provide opportunity for more diversified
building designs instead of a second story cantilever over the garage.
5. Rear yard Setbacks for Cottage Style. The historic cottage style developments typically
had two units at the back of the property with front doors turned and oriented to the
street. With a 20' setback, you are essentially losing the potential for 2 units in the rear
of the property. I believe it would be easier to achieve the desired density of these lots if
the rear yard setback was reduced to 10' for cottage style developments.
6. Building Coverage. 50% is very limiting, and will create major difficulty in achieving the
desired density on a majority of these lots. Can you eliminate private garages counting
towards lot coverage? Is there a way to offset the max. building coverage by subtracting
private balconies, or rooftop patio's from the lot coverage? Or can there be an exception
for lots that maintain the existing structure in place?
7. Administrative review of existing non-conforming structures when adding density. Not
sure how this is covered... but it is a concern of mine when trying to maintain existing
structures on a property that may be non-conforming to new setback regulations.
8. Minimum Lot widths - Could there be an exception to the 50' req'd min. lot width for
existing parcels? Per Planning Commission review or something... This is becoming a
huge barrier to me for infill development. I currently have two projects that are exactly
49.5' wide and it is bringing both of them to a grinding halt.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 60
Lynn K. Pershing via email – 2/27/2019
I wasn’t able to attend the open house on RMF-30 zoning changes last night. I want to express
my deep concern about the RMF-30 zoning change in historic neighborhoods, which
include Local historic districts in our City.
I do NOT support the proposed zoning changes in historic neighborhoods, both LHD, CCD and
those listed on the National Register Of Historic Places.
Obtaining Approval of an LHD is a tortuous, extended process. The main purpose of
obtaining an LHD is the City’s promise to minimize demolitions of contributing structures
and in those areas.
Now The City wants to approve SFD demolitions in historic districts? This will be viewed as City
hypocrisy. Trust in government will be further eroded and will be deserved. LHD and Character
Conservation Districts zoning are in grave danger. They should be considered sacrosanct.
My recent review of demolitions of SFD housing in our City in 2018 shows that the vast majority
of demolitions have occurred in 84102 (Bryant (6) and Bennion-Douglas)8)) and 84108 portion
Yalecrest (8), both neighborhoods listed on the National Register Of Historic Places. I
acknowledge, much to my dismay, that these areas have NO City nor state protections against
demolitions-an oversight of great proportions that will end the existence of the very SOUL of
our City.
Allowing RMF-30-like zoning in historic areas has occurred before that you and others creating
this zoning change are likely probably too young to have witnessed. In the 1960-70s, historically
contributing, architectural significant SFD were demolished to create non compatible apt
buildings in the lower Avenues that destroyed the historic environs, neighborhood identity and
cohesion. Real estate prices in that area have not recovered to date. The current proposed
zoning changes requested will support HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF in our remaining historic
districts
I strongly urge you to reconsider this zoning change in historic neighborhoods. The claim of
“compatible structures” is not viable, as the City has NO definition of “compatibility” in any
ordinance (previous discussion with Planning, CAN, Mayor Office). Further, ONLY LHD and
CCD have design guidelines concerning “compatibility”.
I conclude, therefore, that the claims of ensuring “compatibility” misrepresents and offers false
intent of achieving or enforcing any “compatibility” in future developments.
Please. Stop the destruction of the SOUL of this City. Historic neighborhoods tell the stories and
celebrate the greatness of our City and State. Housing for a diverse City requires a diversity of
housing options. SFD in desirable historic areas offer choices to many families who wish to
locate into the urban environs in safe, desirable neighborhoods with good public schools.
Short term gains to fulfill “affordable housing” needs with long term permanent losses to the
City constitutes a grave irreversible loss to our very identity and viable family housing.
Kirk Huffaker (Executive Director, Preservation Utah) – March 30, 2019
While I provided some comments to you and other staff at the open house, I wanted to follow
that up with a brief message that particularly identifies Allen Park in Sugar House's
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 61
Westminster Heights neighborhood as a sensitive site that should be removed form
consideration of rezoning.
Allen Park is a site or unique are remarkable historic, architectural, and artistic significance
that is located along a designated riparian corridor. I believe the site was zoned RMF-30 prior
to the designation of the riparian corridor, and was not appropriately considered at that time
for rezoning that would allow the riparian protections to take precedence. I believe this is the
opportunity or the Planning Commission to correct this conflict.
Thank you for your consideration.
Esther Hunter via email (East Central City Chair) – April 2, 2019
Thank you for coming out to the meeting. This community is pretty versed in land use and in
between the varied comments I hope you saw the key points we were trying to make.
1. The ECC has zoning on many lots that is incorrect and should have been dealt with years
and years ago that has nothing to do with the changes you are making to the specific zones.
This is not your issue nor can we fix the past. However, this may cause significant damage to
some of this area. This has nothing to do with the changes you are making within the specific
zone and everything to do with the zone on various properties. This is not a new issue. We have
been saying this for years and attempted to make corrections caused by our long ago council
person since this could have all been addressed seamlessly years ago.
Since so many people are new to various commissions and staff we tend to repeat ourselves in
every letter we write and every statement we make. Speaking of, would you please let me
know the names of the two folks who came with you and their positions? I appreciated how
you took the feedback and basically said we will take this feedback back. This is the most
helpful response.
2. The ECC is not opposed to development. We welcome all types of infill and redevelopment but
do feel it needs to be thoughtfully placed so that we do not lose the very precious organically
grown community that has developed. It is a jewel in its charm, types of residential options
available that allow aging in place as well as proximity to so many beneficial features from senior
services, schools, transit to shopping to employment. It is rarity not only in this city/state but
across the county. This is why the bad zoning is so frustrating in that the zoning should be
protecting the right things and informing the development community where they should focus.
3. The point that Jen made related to affordable housing is a key one. While this is not your key
focus, we are hoping you can help carry the message. I know this is beyond the immediate
challenge you have been given and the effort the Planning Division will be doing based on the
recommendations from the housing plan for all the RMF zones. Most people are repeating the
words missing middle. In the ECC we are concerned about the missing middle but also very
concerned about workforce housing and affordable housing. In our area it is the workforce
housing and affordable housing that tends to be targeted by development. The replacements
we have seen shift to market rate housing displacing a great many in our community. It is heart
wrenching to look into the eyes of community members who have lived in our area for 25-30
years, now much more senior, dependent on the services and the transportation offered in our
area that have been literally been given 30 days or less to vacate and now can not find any
housing options in the area.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 62
Many in the audience last night in their day jobs are expert professionals in their field. Taylor
that spoke up related to the ability to build in the new zone so that it can be either affordable or
workforce housing is not probable is such an expert. This is true certainly not for a family vs
simply a boarding house or small studio more likely for a student population. My suggestion on
this front is that maybe a small working group that could give feedback much like you are
assembling the development/architectural folks like Ian could provide some feedback that could
help.
4. It's all a delicate balance. Way beyond the scope of what you are working on is the viability of
the city financially which is a very complicated issue that includes dependence on building
permit fees. It would be well if that state as a whole would do better to allow support for the
extra wear and tear on everything from our infrastructure to services as our city doubles in size
everyday but barring that while the city survives day to day we need to make sure we don't erode
the wrong things, key areas of neighborhood being part of that concern.
Yda Smith via email – April 19, 2019
I am a resident in Sugar House and am hoping to be involved in the future of Allen Park it terms
of advocating for the preservation of the open space, the trees, some of the historic features of
the space and even the peacocks, if possible. I know that there are legal issues in terms of who
the current owner is but in the meantime there are several of us in the area who are getting
organized to see if we can start to move forward with possible options for preserving the beauty
of the place and not let it turn into a dreadful housing development with the loss of all the trees,
birds, peace and quiet, etc. For example, if the Aviary and/or Preservation Utah were involved
in creating a public space it would greatly enhance the quality of life in the area with walking
space among the trees and along the stream, space for bicycle riders, and information about the
history of the Allen family, and possible exotic birds to enjoy that extend the tradition of the
family. The land has a significant legacy with the history of Dr. Allen and the contributions he
made to this area including to the Aviary and the Zoo.
I can understand the desire to change zoning in the areas on the map for possible rezoning of
RMF-30 to create more affordable, smaller unit housing. I can see that Allen Park is marked as
one of these areas as well. I would like to state my opinion that Allen Park should not be a part
of this process and should be exempt from any changes that would increase the options for
building new homes at this time. If there are any meetings associated with this I would like to
know about them and attend.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to getting more involved in the future plans for this
city and to get my neighbors more involved as well.
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 63
ATTACHMENT G: CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The following comments were received from other City divisions/departments with regard to
the proposed text amendments:
Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND):
Housing Plan:
Thank you for citing the Housing Plan (you listed the plans dates as 2017-
2021, but is actually 2018-2022), “all residents of SLC, current and
prospective, regardless of race, age, economic status, or physical ability can
find a place to call home.” But I think it would be better to note the following
Goals and Objectives of the plan that align with this proposal:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity
housing market.
o Objective 1. Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
o Objective 2. Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing
development.
o Objective 3. Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.
Additionally, you can cite the Council’s 20 Guiding Principles on Housing
Development, adopted in 2017. Below are three that align with this proposal:
6. Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: i. Avoiding displacement of
existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and ii. Retaining and expanding
the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types.
8. Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes.
16. Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including
housing
types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as family housing in
the downtown area, innovative housing types, missing middle housing and middle- to
low-income apartments.
In summaries and the proposal, I would highlight the standout items/take
aways (which are great):
Missing middle is not a new type of housing, in fact SLC used to do this very well if you
look at the Avenues and Sugarhouse.
Most of RMF-30 is well under density that the master plan calls for.
By updating these standards, the city hopes to remove some of the zoning barriers that
limit new housing developments, while encouraging compatible design and maintain
existing housing stock.
The city’s deeper lots tend to have a significant amount of underutilize land.
Requiring larger lot areas for these types of housing somewhat force developers to
building larger units that are less affordable.
May encourage more affordable units with smaller footprints.
Other thoughts:
Do you have any direct positive feedback or input from developers that you can cite?
When mentioning “affordable,” it’s helpful to clarify that “they would be more affordable
as homeowner or rental units due to a smaller interior square footage and lot size,
and/or shared common spaces and amenities, similar to Naturally Occurring Affordable
Housing.”
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 64
Fire (Ted Itchon): Thanks for the information, I like to give some input on the above
caption. First is thank you for the height requirement. That requirement keeps the
customer from providing aerial apparatus roads for their developments. Looking at the
Cottage Developments and the Side Oriented Row Homes may be a little more tricky.
Because if there are more than 2 residences on a single parcel then there is a Fire Code
requirement that we have to apply which is called access.
Engineering: No comments.
Public Utilities:
Public Utilities has just a few concerns and recommendations for the text
amendment. Water and sewer service is required for each lot. Two buildings on the
same lot will be required to use a single water service and each building with street
frontage should have its own sewer lateral.
Water and sewer services must have 10 feet of horizontal separation. This
should be considered for the lot width reduction and lot size reduction.
Lots without street frontage will require an easement from the neighboring lot for
water and sewer services. This will also be a requirement for cottage developments.
This usually can be identified in the preliminary plat process but will be required in the
subdivision improvement plans or 1st building permit.
One of the other issues that we are seeing with ADUs, secondary building and buildings without
street frontage is the capability for the sewer to drain given the distance to the sewer main from
these buildings. Many will not be able to have basements. Some may need to be raised, and in
some cases, the adu or additional building cannot meet the requirements.
I don’t think we have any problem with any of the language, we want to make sure
that applicants consider the utility concerns and obstacles that may come up with
some of these changes.
The riparian and flood plain ordinances both apply [to Allen Park]. Riparian has
some flexibility if it is replacing an existing structure
Sustainability: No comments.
Transportation: No comments.
Zoning (Greg Mikolash 3/11/2019):
•The ‘proposed standard’ box should be colored orange to indicate a change from the
current ordinance regarding maximum building height. It appears the change for
building height is now being proposed to be measured from ‘established grade’ and not
‘finished grade’ and the height changes from ‘the average elevation at each building
face’ to ’30 feet’ (but measured to where?). We assume it means ‘30 feet measured as
the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given
point of lot coverage’. This should be spelled out clearly, since it is left undefined. This
proposal will also require changing the Illustration B in 21A.62.050.
There is a question of why are we returning to counting the number of building stories
for determination of maximum height when this was previously removed from the
ordinance due to difficulty in determining what is a basement and what is a story on a
sloping lot? Why are we proposing to go back to counting building stories over the
simple measurement of height?
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 65
The Zoning Reviewers are concerned about the addition of front yard setback averaging
(i.e., prevailing setback—the determination of an unknown, ambiguous dimension) into
the RMF zones. Front yard averaging offers no positive benefit to our neighborhoods
beyond what can be achieved by choosing a (known, non-ambiguous) fixed dimension.
Explaining the rationale behind setback averaging is difficult to explain to customers,
and it is even more difficult to obtain adequate information on the plans, showing the
averaging of setbacks. Ostensibly, requiring front yard averaging extends the timeframe
for issuing permits, where also, many new construction projects become contentious if
any entity believes these measurements are incorrect. What is the rationale of adding
front yard setback averaging to the multi-family zoning districts?
PLNPCM2019-00313
RMF-30 Text Amendments Page 66
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
iii. AGENDA AND MINIUTES
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
September 25, 2019, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
FIELD TRIP - The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
DINNER - Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126
of the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive
training on city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Hopkins Estate Planned Development - On August 8th, 2018, the Planning Commission approved the
Hopkins Estate Planned Development, a proposal to develop five (5) new lots and a private driveway at
1950 & 1960 South 1700 East. The applicant plans to sell each lot individually for the construction of
single-family homes. The design of the structures will ultimately be decided by future buyers, but the
Commission approved a site plan with building envelopes and a landscaping plan. Modifications
approved through the Planned Development process include the creation of four (4) lots without street
frontage, and reduced front and rear yard setbacks for the home to be constructed on lot 1. A condition
of approval was included that requires the applicant to return to the Commission for final review of the
home proposed for lot 1, which has frontage on 1700 East, before a building permit can be issued. The
applicant has provided Staff with a proposal for this structure and is now seeking the Planning
Commission’s final approval. The property is zoned R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential and is located
within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Lauren Parisi (801) 535-7226 or
lauren.parisi@slcgov.com). Case number: PLNSUB2018-00033
2. Text Amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District - The purpose of
this project is to review the existing zoning requirements in the City’s RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family
Residential Zoning District and make amendments to corresponding sections of Salt Lake City’s Zoning
Ordinance. The intent of the proposed amendments is to implement multiple master plan policies found
in Plan Salt Lake, various community master plans, the recently adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year
Housing Plan (2018-2022) and remove zoning barriers to housing development. The RMF-30 zoning
district is located throughout the city. Proposed amendments include:
Introducing design standards for all new development;
Allowing the construction of new building types including sideways row houses, cottage
developments, and tiny houses;
Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit;
Removing lot width minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum;
Allowing more than one primary structure on a lot;
Granting a density bonus for the retention of an existing structure.
The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.24.120 of the zoning ordinance. Related
provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff Contact: Lauren
Parisi at (801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00313
WORK SESSION
1. HAND Consolidated Master Plan briefing - 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The Planning Commission
will receive a briefing from the staff of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division on the
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a federally mandated policy document that
establishes the framework for how Salt Lake City uses federal funding for vital services and programs
that support the City’s housing, infrastructure, and economic development needs. The federal programs
that provide funding to the City are administered by the US Department of Housing & Urban
Development include Community Development Block Grant, Emergency Solutions Grant, HOME
Investment Partnership Program, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. Over the plan
period, it is anticipated that approximately $25-30M of funding will be available to meet the critical needs
identified in this plan. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan impacts how master plans are
implemented and may impact land use decisions. The Planning Commission is required by Utah
Code to make a recommendation on a master plan prior to the plan being adopted by the City
Council. The plan allocates funding citywide. (Staff contact: Jennifer Schuman at (801) 535-7276 or
Jennifer.schuman@slcgov.com)
2.Off-Street Parking Chapter Ordinance Revision - The Planning Commission will receive a
briefing from staff on the update to the parking chapter of the zoning ordinance. The parking
chapter determines how much parking is required for each land use, where the parking can be
located, bicycle parking requirements, and other similar requirements. This will be the second of at
least two briefings and will focus on the proposed key changes to the ordinance. (Staff contact: Eric
Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2017-00753
The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please
contact the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division’s website at www.slcgov.com /planning for copies of the
Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and
minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are
recorded and archived and may be viewed at www.slctv.com. 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 Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711.
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:33:09 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson
Brenda Scheer; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Weston Clark, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon
Lee, Darin Mano, and Andres Paredes. Commissioners Matt Lyon, and Sara Urquhart were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson,
Attorney; Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner; Eric Daems, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins,
Administrative Secretary.
Field Trip
The field trip was cancelled.
APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, MEETING MINUTES. 5:33:16 PM
MOTION 5:33:22 PM
Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the September 11, 2019 minutes. Commissioner
Clark seconded the motion. Commissioners Clark, Lee, Barry, and Hoskins voted “Aye”.
Commissioners Mano, Bachman and Paredes abstained from voting. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:34:07
PM Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:34:12 PM
John Anderson, Planning Manager, welcomed Commissioner Darin Mano to the Planning Commission.
5:35:02 PM
Hopkins Estate Planned Development - On August 8th, 2018, the Planning Commission approved
the Hopkins Estate Planned Development, a proposal to develop five (5) new lots and a private
driveway at 1950 & 1960 South 1700 East. The applicant plans to sell each lot individually for the
construction of single-family homes. The design of the structures will ultimately be decided by future
buyers, but the Commission approved a site plan with building envelopes and a landscaping plan.
Modifications approved through the Planned Development process include the creation of four (4) lots
without street frontage, and reduced front and rear yard setbacks for the home to be constructed on lot
1. A condition of approval was included that requires the applicant to return to the Commission for final
review of the home proposed for lot 1, which has frontage on 1700 East, before a building permit can
be issued. The applicant has provided Staff with a proposal for this structure and is now seeking the
Planning Commission’s final approval. The property is zoned R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential and
is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Lauren Parisi (801) 535-
7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com). Case number: PLNSUB2018-00033
Salt Lake City Planning Commission September 25, 2019 Page 1
Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request.
The applicant elected not to provide further presentation.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:40:12 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed
the Public Hearing.
MOTION 5:40:53 PM
Commissioner Barry stated, based on the information contained in the memo dated September 25,
2019, the staff report dated August 8, 2018, the information presented, and the input received during
the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the proposed design of the single-
family home to be built on lot 1 of the Hopkins Estate Subdivision. This approval is associated with
the larger Planned Development PLNSUB2018-00033, which was approved by the Planning
Commission on August 8, 2018. All conditions associated with that approval still apply.
Commissioner Clark seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Bachman, Hoskins, Barry,
Lee, Scheer, Mano, and Clark voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
5:42:10 PM
Text Amendments to the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District - The purpose of
this project is to review the existing zoning requirements in the City’s RMF-30 Low Density Multi -Family
Residential Zoning District and make amendments to corresponding sections of Salt Lake City’s Zoning
Ordinance. The intent of the proposed amendments is to implement multiple master plan policies found
in Plan Salt Lake, various community master plans, the recently adopted Growing SLC; A Five-Year
Housing Plan (2018-2022) and remove zoning barriers to housing development. The RMF-30 zoning
district is located throughout the city. Proposed amendments include:
Introducing design standards for all new development;
Allowing the construction of new building types including sideways row houses, cottage
developments, and tiny houses;
Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit;
Removing lot width minimum requirements and adding a lot width maximum;
Allowing more than one primary structure on a lot;
Granting a density bonus for the retention of an existing structure.
The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.24.120 of the zoning ordinance. Related
provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff Contact: Lauren
Parisi at (801) 535-7226 or lauren.parisi@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00313
Lauren Parisi, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable
recommendation to the City Council.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission September 25, 2019 Page 2
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
The Decision to remove delineation design standards for sideways row houses as the Planning
Commission had mentioned at the June public hearing that these standards might be too
prescriptive in terms of design
Concern that removing the delineation design standards as well as the Planning Commission’s
review of sideways row houses as a planned development could lead to poor design
Clarification that sideways row house building types where some of the lots do not have direct
public street frontage would no longer need planned development review per the proposed
changes
Proposed lot requirements for cottage developments and tiny houses
Hypothetically if a home can be demolished or preserved and a collection of tiny homes can be
added
Clarification regarding the height standards for cottage building types
Clarification on whether the Commission should be considering access to public utilities, police,
and fire
Whether tiny houses are allowed in other areas of the City
Concern that the tiny house building type may be out of scale with other types in the district
PUBLIC HEARING 6:16:28 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing;
Judy Short, Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council- Stated, for most of the specific places
that Lauren named, there generally wasn’t a lot of objection. There’s places along 7th East and 9th East
that have big deep lots that seem to be underutilized, the houses don’t look in terrific condition and
perhaps some renovation in that area seems appropriate except for Allen Park.
Mark Bunce – Provided history information of the surrounding neighborhood and stated his opposition
of the proposal.
Cindy Cromer – Stated that planners do not have access to information, which drives decision about
the redevelopment of income properties including cost basis per unit, taxable gain, depreciation, and
the number of units allowed on a lot. Reviewed market value of purchased land and County
assessments of properties in the RMF-30 district
Nathan Florence – Spoke about experience where his neighborhood was rezoned from RMF-30 to R-2,
which promoted the renovation of existing homes. Suggested that this rezone in the Bennion
Neighborhood could be used as a case study.
Lynn Pershing – Provided a history of historic neighborhoods in the city and stated her opposition in the
proposal. Suggested promoting the rehabilitation of existing homes.
Monica Hilding – Stated there is a sideways row house development proposed to be constructed next
to her property and that she is opposed of the proposal. Is concerned that planners don’t understand
the investment that residents have made in their properties and that the proposal would encourage
deterioration of existing structures instead of rehabilitation.
Paul Svendsen – Explained that demolishing an existing structure in a local historic district is difficult to
achieve. Stated that he is in support of the proposal as it promotes the development of missing middle
housing. He also clarified that the removal of delineation design standards for sideways row houses
would not mean that the front unit wouldn’t face the street.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission September 25, 2019 Page 3
Janet Warburton – Stated she’s opposed of the proposal and read a letter from Historic Preservation
Utah representatives.
Tim Funk – Raised concern regarding housing affordability. Suggested that the proposal should not be
applied city wide and instead look at zoning regulations in smaller areas.
Jarod Hall – Stated his support of the proposal. The city is growing and should increase density. The
unit bonus is a good incentive to encourage preservation of existing houses.
Brandon Dayton – Stated his support of the amendment and feel amendments like this are crucial. He
also stated that the proposal would allow regular people to invest and make changes in their own
community.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:
Clarification as to how this amendment will affect Allen Park
Whether there is a particular reason that makes more sense to adjust an entire zone rather than
rezoning an area
The importance of having zoning districts that work for their intended use and that multi-family
zones should allow multi-family housing. Also, important to preserve character of
neighborhoods, but densify at the same time
Clarification on delineation design standards for sideways row houses
The difference between cottage developments and tiny house developments
Concern that tiny house building types are not consistent with existing street typology in the city
and that the proposed tiny house building type should be removed
MOTION 7:04:38 PM
Commissioner Barry stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report dated June
26th, 2019, the memo dated September 25th, 2019, and testimony provided, I move that the
Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation for PLNPCM2019-00313 to the City
Council to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments related to updates to the
RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoning district with the following provisions:
1. That the reference of tiny homes be removed until there is further clarification/ definition
of what that looks like and functions
2. That sideways developments do come before the Planning Commission for final approval.
Further discussion was made to clarify the motion.
RESTATED MOTION 7:14:36 PM with the following
conditions:
1. Provisions for tiny homes is removed from the text amendment until further study and to
clarify what that means; what it would look like, and how it would function
2. That Staff does further review of design standards for the sideways row house
developments to identify how the front relates to the street and pedestrian and how the
sides relate to the street view as a particular lot warrants.
Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Clark, Mano, Scheer, Lee, Barry,
Hoskins, Bachman, and Paredes voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission September 25, 2019 Page 4
WORK SESSION
7:17:30 PM
HAND Consolidated Master Plan briefing - 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. The Planning Commission will
receive a briefing from the staff of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division on the 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is a federally mandated policy document that establishes the
framework for how Salt Lake City uses federal funding for vital services and programs that support the City’s
housing, infrastructure, and economic development needs. The federal programs that provide funding to the
City are administered by the US Department of Housing & Urban Development include Community
Development Block Grant, Emergency Solutions Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, and
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. Over the plan period, it is anticipated that approximately $25-
30M of funding will be available to meet the critical needs identified in this plan. The 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan impacts how master plans are implemented and may impact land use decisions. The
Planning Commission is required by Utah Code to make a recommendation on a master plan prior to the
plan being adopted by the City Council. The plan allocates funding citywide. (Staff contact: Jennifer
Schuman at (801) 535-7276 or Jennifer.schuman@slcgov.com)
Jennifer Schuman, Housing and Neighborhood Development Deputy Director; Susan Becker, Zions
Public Financing; Muriel Xochimitl, Strategic Communications, briefed the Planning Commission
regarding the Consolidated Master Plan and provided a brief presentation.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
Whether there has been a community assessment done
How HAND did on the last five-year plan and whether they met their goals
Clarification on where housing mitigation fund goes
How notices will be provided to the public
7:39:59 PM
Off-Street Parking Chapter Ordinance Revision - The Planning Commission received a briefing from
staff on the update to the parking chapter of the zoning ordinance. The parking chapter determines how
much parking is required for each land use, where the parking can be located, bicycle parking
requirements, and other similar requirements. This was the second of at least two briefings and focused
on a few outstanding questions of the ordinance, regarding parking requirements for cottage style
developments, multi -family projects, and how a reduction of parking near bus transit stops might be
administered. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2017-00753
Eric Daems, Principal Planner; and Casey Stewart, Senior Planner, provided the Planning Commission
with information regarding the proposed off-street parking chapter ordinance revision.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
Minimum parking for single family cottage style developments
Minimum parking for multi-family developments
If and how to implement a reduction of parking stalls requirements when projects are near bus
stops that are serviced frequently (15 min daytime intervals)
Public transportation
The meeting adjourned at 8:25:10 PM
Salt Lake City Planning Commission September 25, 2019 Page 5
3B. PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
iv. Public Comments Received After Staff Report Published
Jordan Atkin – 9/19/2019
I will generalize a point of discussion until I hear next steps.
Section 2 pertaining to cottage lots and the height of the structures.
I would challenge that 18 foot flat roof height limit will not accommodate 2 story dwelling units.
I'm doing a project with a height limit of 20 ft in an R-1-5 zone and we can only get 8'6" foot ceilings
after accounting for a foot of structure floor to floor, then the roof structure is a foot, and you need a
parapet to help with water control and thats at least 6 inches. (ive attached a screen shot from our
construction drawings)
If the city approves 18 ft we will be stuck building houses with 7'6" foot ceilings if you want to build
with a flat roof, yuck.
If the city reaches out to a few builders/architects/engineers this should be really easy to verify.
Hope this gets considered.
Marty Shannon – 9/22/2019
My name is Marty (Martha) Shannon and my property at 1366 Downington Avenue backs onto Allen
Park. My husband and I purchased the property because it backed onto the beautiful wooded Allen
Park. I am distressed to know it may be developed and especially distressed that it is zoned for
multi-family units.
I am sorry that I will miss the Planning Commission meeting this Wednesday, September 25th.
Please record my position: I am opposed to any zoning changes that increase density of RMF-30. Our,
once quiet, neighborhood has been inundated with Westminster College students and all the noise,
parties, beer cans, cars and lack of consideration they bring. Thus, higher density housing in Allen
Park will only increase those kinds of concerns.
I support any changes that maintain the open space and preserve the creek, trees and natural growth. I
have been to the City Recorders office and found that Allen Park is now owned by Parker Chase Allen
and am writing him a letter today. I, personally, hope he will want to honor his ancestors love of nature
and the land, but he may want to develop all or part of his inherited property. I am writing him to let
him know, if he is not aware, of a way to petition Salt Lake City to keep part of the park a “riparian
corridor".
Please feel free to contact me it you would like clarity on my position or anything else related to Allen
Park.
Thank you for your time.
Ian Kaplan – 9/24/2019
Looks like there have been some positive improvements to the plan! Nice work! I can't attend the
planning commission meeting, but I'd like to submit my comment to you directly if that's okay.
The 10' side yard requirement on Multi-family and sideways Rowhouses is going to seriously prohibit
any sort of this type of development in this zone. A land developer will need to find a lot that is at
minimum 62' wide to do side oriented Rowhouses (22' garage, 24' backup, plus 10' and 6' setbacks), and
probably similar or greater for multifamily if there will be a double loaded parking arrangement. I don't
know of a single lot I've looked at in the last 2 years that is over 50' for the infill stuff. I understand you
want to provide a good setback buffer if an RMF-30 lot is neighboring a low density lot - so I would
suggest that the setback is based on the adjacent zoning. If it is single family - then the setback remains
10', but if it is adjacent to commercial or multi-family, there should be an option to reduce to 5' on one
side, and 3' on the other. There are lots of cities with this style code - and the resulting urban impact is
minimal to single family properties and places the density where it belongs in groupings of multi-family
properties.
Jim Dalrymple II – 9/23/2019
I'm a homeowner in the Avenues neighborhood and strongly support these amendments and any others
that will make housing development easier and more streamlined in Salt Lake City. If anything, these the
policies are still too conservative; I'd love to see it become even easier to add housing to existing
neighborhoods like my own (Minneapolis' approach seems promising). In any case, these changes are a
good step in the right direction and I believe would help make our city more welcoming and affordable
to the families who want to live here.
It's also worth noting that earlier this year I explored the possibility of building an ADU in my backyard.
There's enough land for a dwelling, and I even had the financial resources to take on this project. But I
was thwarted by a variety of policy details in the city's needlessly onerous ADU regulations. As a result,
there is one less home for someone, in a relatively walkable neighborhood no less. I realize that the
policies being discussed right now span a variety of housing types and development scenarios, but the
point here is simply that it makes no sense to block small-scale would-be developers from adding to the
city's housing supply — in whatever forms they can. There are plenty of people who share this view,
and it literally costs the city nothing to just get out of the way; in fact, making infill development easier
would actually generate more revenue for the city, both in the form of new permit fees and higher
property tax revenue.
I realize that sometimes apprehensive homeowners — some of whom are often very vocal — worry that
by making development easier we'll sacrifice the best parts of our neighborhoods. But I'd like to point
out that there are also many of us who embrace neighborhoods that evolve to accommodate a growing
community.
Hannah Raasch – 9/23/2019
Sorry to not be able to attend the 9/25 meeting, but I object to any changes in the RMF-30 Low Density
Multi-Family Residential District that allow for smaller lots per unit and more than one primary
structure on a lot. I am a co-owner of 1374 E Downington Ave, which backs up to Allen Park. We have
enjoyed the density of trees and the preservation of the area around the creek that serves as a refuge
for wildlife. I would hate to see RMF-30s rules be changed and have the once wildlife refuge and natural
habitat of Allen Park be turned into another series of higher density homes in one of the few remaining
green areas in central Salt Lake City.
Carissa Monroy – 9/25/2019
I am a house owner on Blaine Avenue and I am concerned about the future development at Allen Park.
Unfortunately I cannot attend the meeting tonight, but wanted to submit my comments.
I have read through the amendments and I don't understand all of the details, but appreciate the efforts
to fill a need for housing in the community. My desires for this development:
--Find a way to preserve some of the history of Allen Park and the natural habitat that has existed for
so long. These are rare to find in a city and add so much character and benefit to the communities. I
have heard of the idea of designating a "riparian corridor" to help preserve this and this is very
important. I would love a public space, even if small, to be able to access as a neighbor of the property.
--Avoid high rise developments, avoid "mcmansions"/very large houses - which it sounds like this
amendment is trying to do.
--If there is any way to avoid developments that will primarily be used for short term/temporary
housing (thinking about how to avoid airbnb, how to avoid rental properties that are poorly
maintained.).
--Avoid significant density to the point where there will be excessive traffic, including traffic coming
in and out and affecting pedestrians on the sidewalk.
thanks for listening and being open to comments!!
Cindy Cromer – 9/25/19
Comment to the SLC Planning Commission 9/25/19
My name is Cindy Cromer. I spoke to you in June about the House of Cards supporting affordable
housing in the City's RMF zones which occur in establish neighborhoods. I have spent over 40
years managing rental properties in the established neighborhoods of Bryant and Central City.
In the next two minutes, I have to be more effective than I have ever been in that time frame. I have
spent a year and a half talking with the planners without success about the damages that this proposal
would cause to existing affordable housing.
First and most importantly, the planners do not have access to the information which drives decisions
about the redevelopment of income properties. They cannot anticipate the consequences because
they do not have the data, and they cannot reasonably obtain it. They are like so many other people in
this City, speculating with our neighborhoods. They are speculating with planning tools; other people
speculate with financial tools. Our supply of affordable housing suffers either way.
After being ineffective for so long, I gathered the information that the planners do not have, the
variables that drive the decision making of developers and existing owners of investment property. For
a developer or investment property owner, the relevant variables cost basis per unit, taxable gain,
depreciation, and the all important number of units allowed.
Three years ago the price for a buildable lot was between $100,000 and $150,000 per unit. I paid
$100,000 but found a comparable for $150,000. The County's 2019 assessed values in the spreadsheet
range from $113,000 to $149,897 per unit in 4- and 6-plexes. We are at the point in this housing crisis
where the market value of ground exceeds the County's assessed value of the area with a housing unit,
a well-maintained housing unit.
The amount of land required has been reduced since your hearing in May, creating even more negative
consequences for existing affordable units. As I reviewed the information on the spreadsheet, I found 3
buildings which would be demolished by an investor driven by financial gain. They contain 11 affordable
units, 10 of the units have new wiring and plumbing. Yes, the owner could add units as indicated but
they will have to be market rate, and nothing replaces the code-compliant, affordable units which an
investor would choose to demolish.
I can respond to any questions about the costs of demolition. I've done that, too.
Preservation
Utah
September 25, 2019
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
C/O Ms. Lauren Parisi
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 8411
Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission,
Preservation Utah's trustees and staff have examined the proposed text amendments to
the RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District/ Section 21A.24.120 of Salt
Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. We recognize that these amendments will be highly
detrimental to historic neighborhoods throughout the city and will ultimately diminish the
unique character of these same neighborhoods. We additionally recognize that these
amendments are likely to reduce, not increase, the amount of low-income housing in
Salt Lake City. Much of the best low-income housing in Salt Lake City is found in the
very sort of older residential buildings that will be targeted by these amendments.
Despite assertions made in the RMF-30 memorandum, our experience is that
developers, when given the opportunity, will prioritize economic return over historic
preservation or other public benefits. For these reasons, we strongly encourage
members of the planning commission to recommend against incorporating these text
amendments into Salt Lake City's zoning ordinances.
Sincerely,
David Amott, Ph.D.
375 N Canyon Rd, Salt Lake C .Ur 84103 (801 533 0858 preservat1on-.,tah.org
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
Petition Initiation
Request
Community & Neighborhoods Department
To:Mayor Jackie Biskupski
From:Nick Norris, Planning Director
Date:April 9, 2019
CC:.Je nnifer Mcgrath, Department of Community & Neighborhood s Directo r; Michaela Oktay,
Deputy Planning Director; file
Re:RMF-30: Low Density Multi -Family Residential zoning district text amendments
The purpose of this memo is to request that you initiate a p etition for the Planning Division to begin the process of
amending the zoning regulations for the RMF-30: Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoning district . This request
has come about due to the research, an alysis, a nd public input associated with another text amendment that the
Division has been working on related to modifying lot width requirements (initiated in 2018). Barriers to housing
development in the RMF zoning d is tricts was an issu e identified by the Rose Center for Public Leadership on their
visit to Salt Lake City in 2018.
The goal of the initial p etition was to modify the lot width requirements as they tend to restrict n ew housing
development in the Multi-Family Resid ential zones because the lot width requirement is larger than most existing lots
are wide. As the project progressed, the Division identified other city goals that could be accomplished if there were
additional changes made to the RMF zoning regulations. These changes include:
• I ncentivizing the construction of additional housing uni ts when existing, historic buildings are
preserved; and
• Encouraging the construction of certain building configurations including row houses, cottage
developments and tiny homes that can accommodate more housing units, while remaining compatible
with small er-scale development; and
• Ensuring neighborhood character and quality housing by adding design standards that help new
developments be more compatible with the scale, character, and nature of the surrounding neighborhood.
Proposing addition al changes will help the city implement other master plan goals including the goals identified in
Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC related to increasing housing supply as well as the Salt Lake City Preservation Plan
by promoting the preservation of our historic structures while allowing appropriate scaled and designed modifications
to historic properties. These changes also align with the City Council's 20 Guiding Pri nciples on Housing
Development related to creating innovative housing and missing-middle housing types for people of a ll backgrounds
and incomes.
•Page 1
The original petition had a narrow scope that was limited to the review of lot width regulations. This
updated petition initiation Yvould allow the Planning Division to broaden the scope and take a more
comprehensive look at all of the zoning regulations within the RMF-30 zoning district. Ifyou have any
questions, please contact me.
Concurrence to initiating the zoning map amendment petition as noted above .
;,;
Jackie Biskupski, Mayor Date
•Page 2
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM
THE
SALT LAKE CITY
RACIAL EQUITY IN POLICING
COMMISSION
2
To: Salt Lake City: City Council
Salt Lake City Mayor: Erin Mendenhall
From: Racial Equity in Policing Commission
RE: Recommendations for Improved Policing
Date: March 2, 2021
Introduction
The Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission is pleased to present its first set of
recommendations to the Mayor and members of City Council. The Commission’s work is
specifically designed to address and improve the disparate outcomes seen in the interactions
between the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) and communities of color compared to
White residents, as well as the internal disparities that exist within the department, e.g., the
overall demographics of the department, and the minimal diversity within specialty units. The
Commission’s approach is to address these issues through internal culture change and increased
cultural awareness. Its work is done on behalf of all the residents of Salt Lake City, and specifically
its communities of color. The summer of 2020 specifically, has shined a light on the unequal
treatment often received by communities of color, nationally and in Salt Lake City. This
Commission hopes to be a voice and a vehicle for change. As an overall approach to its work, the
Commission’s work is accomplished by meeting monthly as a full body, and through the work of
its three subcommittees: Training, School Safety (to include School Resource Officers), and
Policies and Practice. These recommendations are the first of several to be brought to the Mayor
and City Council for acceptance and implementation.
Acknowledgements
The Commission wishes to acknowledge and offer its gratitude for the engagement of Chief Mike
Brown, his command staff, and the officers and staff of the Salt Lake City Police Department
(SLCPD) for their responsiveness to the many requests for information and personal engagement.
Further, this work would not have been as efficient or effective without the excellent support of
city staff, specifically Mayoral and City Council staff, who have been the behind-the-scenes
support to ensure the administration of the Commission’s work is as efficient and effective as
possible.
Foundation for These Recommendations
On February 10, 2021, the Commission heard and discussed a series of recommendations
presented by the Training Subcommittee. After robust discussion and edits to the
recommendations, the full Commission took a vote, and unanimously approved the attached
recommendations.
3
These recommendations were based upon a vast amount of information and data presented to
the Training Subcommittee by Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD), as well as information
obtained and considered on its own. A foundational document for the subcommittee’s work was
the President’s Report on 21st Century Policing, dated May 2015. Examples of data and
information reviewed are:
President’s Report on 21st Century Policing, May 2015, specifically Pillar 5: Training and
Education
Curricula from the SLCPD Training Academy, Course of Instruction – 2020-2021
Curricula from the CIT Academy, Session #10 September 17-20
Demographic data
o Crisis Intervention Team
o Field Training Officer Program
o Overall SLCPD employees
Budget Development Report by Cost Center and Object Code
Subcommittee discussions with Captain S. Mourtgos, Head of SLCPD Training Division, and
memo to the subcommittee dated December 11, 2020
Subcommittee discussions with Sgt. Scott Stuck and Director Jessica Watters of the Crisis
Intervention Team
Numerous discussions with, and feedback provided by, Chief Mike Brown, Asst. Chief Tim
Doubt, and Lt. Yvette Zayas,
Focus Areas of Recommendations
The following recommendations are in three specific areas:
1. Field Training Officers (FTO) Program
2. The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)
3. The Training Academy and In-Service Training Curriculum
The FTO Program is a vital component of the SLCPD for the Commission to consider because, as
stated in the Salt Lake City Police Department Field Training Officer Manual, (6/1/2016)
Field training has a significant impact on the individual trainee in terms of imprinting
department culture, attitudes, values, and ethics in carrying out the duties of policing that
will remain with the officer throughout a career.
Ensuring the broadest demographics possible within those officers who are FTO’s sends an
unconscious message to the new recruits that diversity is an important factor for SLCPD, that it
is not essentially a White-only police department, and officers and communities of color are
important in the fabric of SLCPD.
The CIT Program is important given the difficult work of engaging with those who may be in the
midst of a mental health crisis, the intersectionality of race and mental health, and recent
4
engagements with People of Color who were having mental health issues that led to unfortunate
and often deadly outcomes.
The Training Academy Curriculum is important because it is this initial and foundational training
that propels an officer thru their career.
In-service curriculum ensures officers are up to date on current practices and is a means to
emphasize the priorities of the City and the Department.
How and what is trained is what guides an officer through the performance of their duties, and
most specifically how they engage with those they are expected to serve. They are the main
building-blocks for an officer’s performance of their duties.
How and what is trained is what guides an officer through the performance of their duties, and
most specifically how they engage with those they are expected to serve. It is a main building-
block for an officer’s performance of their duties.
ISSUE STATEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. DEMOGRAPHIC CONCERN RELATED TO FIELD TRAINING OFFICERS (FTO)
ISSUE: Out of the 67 current FTO’s, there are only six (6) People of Color:
Two (2) are Hawai’ian/Pacific Islander
Four (4) are Latino
There are currently no targeted outreach efforts to ensure or improve the diversity of the
program. It is designed for self-selection to apply for the program.
FTO PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION
1. Create a process for targeted outreach to officers of color to increase the diversity of the
program
2. TRAINING CONCERNS RELATED TO CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM (CIT)
ISSUES:
Training is not prioritized, nor data specifically captured, for Lateral Hires
Re-Certification is voluntary once certification from the Academy expires after two years
There is insufficient budget to enlarge the program
5
o Currently the program is limited to four (4) detectives to rotate work with eight
(8) social workers for one shift (day shift)
Currently:
189 officers have chosen to re-certify
272 have chosen not to re-certify
CIT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Require CIT re-certification for all officers
2. Require CIT certification for all lateral hires
3. Increase or Re-allocate budget to complete this priority (with an emphasis on re-allocation)
and consider zero based budgeting in the long-term budgeting process
4. Reprioritize budget to Core Responder Model Unit to provide for more detectives to cover
more than one shift and have sufficient staffing to cover when detectives are unable to work
their shift
5. Prioritize and fill these detective positions (over other police specialty unit positions) and
civilian mental health professional positions, to ensure quality response, and to add additional
expertise and relief to emergency mental health calls
3. TRAINING CONCERNS RELATED TO EQUITY, IMPLICIT BIAS, AND COMMUNITY POLICING
CURRICULUM IN THE ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING
ISSUES:
There are no Salt Lake City community-based facilitators of color in the Academy or In-
Service Training
There is no component of the Academy that provides the history of Salt Lake City and its
communities of color
The current number of hours dedicated to Diversity/Equity/Inclusion/Implicit Bias
training in the Academy (four during Fair and Impartial Policing) is insufficient to embed
an equity lens and consciousness throughout the organization.
6
TRAINING ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Require Salt Lake City community-based trainers of color to be part of the Academy and In-
Service training team, selected in partnership with Police Civilian Advisory Board
2. Require Equity curriculum that is best practice and that is co-created with a community-
based trainer
3. Require that recruits learn the history of the diverse communities in Salt Lake City
4. Require increased budget allocation to provide additional professional diversity, equity, and
inclusion training
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slc.gov/council/
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards and Ben Luedtke
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:March 2, 2021
RE: Public Art Maintenance Study
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
In the summer of 2020, the Arts Council hired Dodworth & Stauffer Art Appraisal and
Consulting to complete a collection-wide inventory and condition assessment of public art
within the City. The consultant’s team inspected 150 public art pieces and 92 visual artworks in
the City and County building, gauging the condition of each piece and the associated
maintenance recommendations. Each piece was ranked and prioritized into one of four tiers
based on maintenance needs. Although the Council received a short introduction to the public
arts maintenance study on January 19, 2021 during the Percent for Arts ordinance amendment
briefing, there wasn’t adequate time for the Administration to fully address this issue. The
purpose of this discussion is to allow the Council additional time to focus on the maintenance
study results, recommendations and next steps.
When the Council appropriated $40,000 for the study in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 they
were told it would provide the following information outlined below. The Administration has
been asked to address these points during the briefing.
-Updated arts inventory (what do we know now that we didn’t know before, how large is
the City’s art collection, geographic distribution between Council Districts, any surprises
such as missing or new pieces, what are the next steps)
-Condition assessment for each individual artwork (what methodology was used for the
assessment, summary information, including how many artworks are in good condition
vs. very poor/at risk of permanent damage)
-Cost estimates for one-time repair for artworks (What is the total cost for one-time
repairs and specifically for urgent repairs?)
-Estimates for ongoing maintenance funding needs (What would the ideal annual funding
level be for ongoing maintenance to meet best practices? If that funding level was
provided, then would the Arts Council need additional staff and/or other resources?)
o For these last two items the cost and funding level are estimates. Final costs won’t
be known until the bidding process happens. The Council funded this study with
the expectation that estimates would be available.
Policy questions:
Some art pieces were excluded because there were no maintenance
issues. Council Members may wish to ask about other pieces which were
excluded from the ranking.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration how long under
current funding levels would it take to catch up on all one-time repairs
and provide ideal maintenance.
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ______
______Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___
__________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 12, 2020
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Benjamin Kolendar, Director of Salt Lake City Department of Economic
Development
SUBJECT: Public Art Portfolio Maintenance Study
STAFF CONTACTS: Felicia Baca, Katherine Nix
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a follow up deliverable to the
Council relating to the CIP maintenance considerations. This deliverable is associated with the
1.5% CIP for art consideration. Collectively, the maintenance study provides Council
information necessary to consider the 1.5% for Art ordinance and budget which was transmitted
to Council on May, 28th of 2020.
In 2019, the Arts Council also completed the establishment of a formal maintenance fund/cost
center with Finance permitting the use of CIP for repairs/maintenance to address the absence of
any maintenance funding in preparation for this process. An initial 200K allocation was made to
this fund.
This request seeks to build on work related to the master plan, and the Mayor’s vision. The high
level items are notated below.
●City Master Plan Arts 2040 Target: Embedded art in all city infrastructure projects
●City Master Plan Plan Arts Initiative: Incorporate artistic elements and support
cultural events on a neighborhood scale to reinforce neighborhood character and
identity.
●City Master Plan Transportation and Mobility Initiative: Incorporate pedestrian
oriented elements, including street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, signage, and
embedded art, into our rights-of-way and transportation networks.
1/13/2021
1/13/2021
Lisa Shaffer
●City Master Plan Parks and Recreation Initiative: Incorporate pedestrian
oriented elements, including street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, signage, and
embedded art, into our rights-of-way and transportation networks.
●City Master Plan Beautiful City Initiative: Use art to create and reinforce a sense of
place, including embedded art in infrastructure of all sizes.
●Mayor’s 2020 Vision: Complete Arts Council strategic and communications plan and
identify short-term goals for enhancing public art and arts education.
●Mayor’s 2020 Vision: Complete City-wide Arts CIP plan for remaining enterprise
funds.
RECOMMENDATION: The department recommends the Council receive this document and
consider the 1.5% CIP for Art request.
BUDGET IMPACT:
●An expense allocation adjustment from a 1% of CIP (after debt servicing and other
ongoing long term obligations) to 1.5%. While FY22 numbers are not yet available, if the
percentage in FY21 increased from 1.0% to 1.5 %, the total amount would have been
$131,817.00, an additional $43,939.
●This request does not anticipate an increase in revenue to the City’s tax base. The
Department of Economic Development will specifically identify projects which are meant
to increase the tax base to the general fund when we transmit information to the Council.
This item focuses on increasing our ability to have art in all infrastructure projects.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Next steps after the condition and maintenance assessment will require formally acquiring bids
from media specific vendors, artists, or contractors. 11 Works of Art were identified as critical
for maintenance in the study. Because the tier one priorities may be unsafe or at risk of severe
deterioration in their current condition, these 11 artworks should be addressed in the 2021
maintenance season. There are several additional artworks currently undergoing maintenance,
to be completed this year. While the next step is acquiring bids, it is anticipated that the 200K
will be expanded quickly due to lack of previous set aside for the entire collection.
Currently, the City has three works that have active bids for restoration that total approximately
$25,000. Additionally the work for plaques needing to be completed or restored for the
collection is for a total of 86 Plaques ranging from $200-2000.00 each.
131 total works in the collection were flagged in the maintenance assessment for a Level 1-4
priority ranging from general maintenance and plaques, to urgently needing repair. Because
bids will need to be acquired and restoration staffed over time, the total cost of all maintenance
of works in the collection is unknown at this time. Best practice sets aside 10-15% per individual
project budget to be saved for future maintenance. With the implementation of a future
maintenance set aside, it is anticipated the remaining maintenance funds from the 200K will not
sufficiently cover maintenance costs and a best-practice fund will take time to build.
Ben Kolendar, Felicia Baca and Katherine Nix will be available for any Council discussion on this
item.
ATTACHMENTS:
●Public Art Portfolio Maintenance Study
●May 2020 1.5% CIP for Art Transmittal
MAINTENANCE AND INVENTORY ASSESSMENT: SUMMARY
The creation of new public art works in Salt Lake City is an important component of the Public Art
Program, which was created in the 1980’s to allocate 1% of Capital Improvement Project Funds to add
high quality, site‐specific artists’ work to the natural and built environments. Stewardship of existing
public art collection is also essential, for the safety and enjoyment of Salt Lakers now and in the future.
As the public art collection has aged and grown, the critical value of protecting and maintaining the
existing collection has become increasingly apparent. Prior to 2019, the CIP funding structure did not
allow Salt Lake City’s Public Art Program to set aside best‐practice and customary percentages for
maintenance upon project outset. Additionally, other works of art that exist in the ownership of Salt
Lake City or the RDA have not set aside maintenance funds at project outset as best practice. With the
support of City Council, the Public Art Program contracted a collection‐wide inventory and condition
assessment in the summer of 2020 with the newly established maintenance cost center and seed
funding. (200K including this study in the FY20 budget cycle).
Goals
The Inventory and Condition Assessment project assessed the physical condition of artworks in the
public art collection and City and County building, identified recommended maintenance steps, and
created a ranked priority list by which maintenance actions can be completed.
Process
The assessment was completed by local consultant Dodworth & Stauffer Art Appraisal and Consulting
between July and November 2020. The team inspected 150 public art works in the Salt Lake City public
art collection and 92 visual artworks in the City and County building. Each artwork’s current condition
was documented in one or more condition reports, and recommendations for the stewardship of that
work were provided. Finally, each artwork was sorted into one of four priority tiers based on the
urgency of the required maintenance.
Exceptions
The report was extensive but did not account for every public artwork that Salt Lake City is involved
with. Exclusions from the process included the items below. These exclusion were made either because
the current condition of the work was known to have no issues, resides outside the public art collection,
AND to meet the budgetary constraints of the project.
Artworks created in the last 5 years, which have had limited time to deteriorate and have been
assessed by Arts Council Staff.
Artworks created, owned, or maintained by other agency (not in the “Public Art Collection”,
including artwork at the Salt Lake City Airport and artwork at TRAX stops created through the
Art in Transit program). Artwork created with the RDA was reviewed.
Artworks intended to be temporary
Visual art purchased in 2013 for the public safety building
Outcomes
The inventory and assessment report was delivered to the public art program on November 9, 2020.
Divided between public art and art at the City and County Building, it detailed a need for maintenance to
restore the collection to a safe condition and preservation for residents of Salt Lake City. Assessed
artworks from the public art collection were sorted in to four categories of need:
Tier: Number of
Public artworks
Number C+C
Artworks
Total
One ‐ Immediate action: structural issues, visually unsightly 10 1 11
One – Artwork missing or deaccession recommended 4 2 6
Two ‐ Moderate action: peeling paint, early corrosion, etc. 37 6 43
Three ‐ Cleaning / waxing 31 5 36
Four ‐ Condition acceptable (Minor Maintenance) 11 24 35
Four ‐ Condition acceptable (plaque replacement only) 36 25 61
Four ‐ Condition acceptable (No issues) 52 31 83
Note: for artworks with multiple distinct components, each component was assessed separately.
Plaques & Labels
Approximately 86 plaques are needed for the public art collection. Some uniform approach to labelling –
stickers, plaques, an art guide at the info desk ‐ is needed for the City and County Building collection.
Next Steps: Short Term
Deaccession Policy: The public art program has a draft deaccession policy which can be finalized
and adopted by the Art Design Board in the 2021 calendar year, and applied to the missing and
destroyed artworks to formally remove them from the collection. The policy can be used in an
ongoing manner, as part of healthy collection management. This best‐practice policy has not
been created in Salt Lake City’s Public Art Program, nor Salt Lake City. A draft of this policy is
currently in review at the Department and Administration.
Tier one: Because the tier one priorities may be unsafe or at risk of severe deterioration in their
current condition, these 11 artworks should be addressed in the 2021 maintenance season.
There are several additional artworks currently undergoing maintenance, to be completed this
year. Next steps after condition and maintenance assessment will require formally acquiring
bids from media specific vendors, artists, or contractors.
Next Steps: Mid term
Plaque Strategy: Plaques attributing artwork to artists are a typical part of contracts between
Salt Lake City and artists, and are thus mandatory. There are approximately 86 absent plaques,
and additional plaques are purchased with each new artwork. Permanent plaques are engraved
steel or aluminum and cost $200 ‐ $1,800 each. Implementing a plaque strategy will entail
finalizing text and layout for each plaque and coordinating their fabrication and installation by a
local vendor.
Establish an ongoing funding stream for artwork maintenance (a portion of 1.5% for art policy
could be so dedicated)
Clarify ownership, maintenance, restoration, and insurance roles for the several ‘gray areas’ of
the collection, which include: RDA, Library, TRAX, and International Peace Garden artworks.
Generate a process for routine artwork care to help prevent catastrophic damage.
Review final product and determine strategy for addressing other maintenance needs in the
collection. Begin to identify what services will need to be rendered to accomplish scope and
start to gather preliminary bids from vendors. This work was previously contracted out in past
Administrations and Arts Council staffing levels should be assesses to accomplish this.
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERINMENDENHALL
MAYOR
EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,RDA
BENKOLENDAR
ACTINGDIRECTOR
CITY COUNCILTRANSMITTAL
_______________________Date Received:
RachelOtto, Chief ofStaff Date sent to Council:
__________________________________________________________________
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/14/2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM:Benjamin Kolendar, Acting Director, Department of Economic Development
SUBJECT:Percent for Art Ordinance Revision
STAFF CONTACTS: Felicia Baca,Felicia.baca@slcgov.com 385-256-5588
DOCUMENT TYPE:Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Enact revised ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT:Future increase to CIP budget of .5 percent to Percent for Art allocation
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
A draft revision of a 1.5% Public Art ordinance was completed in March of 2019 with support from
Administration and CAN but was unable to be enacted due to the lack of a maintenance fund
being established through Finance in order to distinguish maintenance funds from project funds.
Since that time a maintenance fund was established with Finance permitting the use of CIP for
repairs/maintenance, and Administration (past and current) and some Council members
expressed support for increasing our percent for art program to 1.5% both to address the absence
of any maintenance funding; to respond to community input for an enhanced public art program;
and to mirror other national programs that have programs from 1-3% for Public Art allocations.
In October of 2019 with the establishment of the maintenance fund, funding was also approved to
conduct an inventory and collection condition assessment. A final bid has been acquired from a
contractor and we assume that once under contract it will be safe to conduct this work in light of
COVID-19-and weather appropriate timing.
Once this assessment is complete and individual works of art are prioritized based on condition, a
second phase would include bids from individual contractors on maintenance repair costs. The
City has not conducted a condition assessment comprehensive inventory outside of the City &
County Collection in 2013. Internal Arts Division policy would guide the designation of the .5% to
either the maintenance fund OR additional funds for projects should the maintenance fund reach
adequate levels. Once the Inventory and Condition assessment is complete the Arts Division will
need to assess if current staffing will meet the demand for repairs, or if a contractor will need to be
engaged to facilitate the work under the permissible use for CIP maintenance funds. In tandem
with these efforts internal Public Art guidelines are being developed to address items not covered
in ordinance such as commissioning process, placement, engagement with the Arts Council,
community outreach, maintenance, etc.
Notes:
Felicia Baca and Ben Kolendar will be available to present at the Work Session.
This memorandum has been cleared through the Department of Finance and the Department of
Community and Neighborhoods.
Attachments:
Ordinance Amending 2.30
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of2020
(An ordinance amending Chapter 2.30 of the Salt Lake City Code.)
An ordinance amending Chapter 2.30 of the Salt Lake City Code to increase the number
of board members permitted to be professional artists or arts administrators; to increase the
contribution of appropriated capital improvement funds to the City's Percent for Art Fund; to
establish a public art maintenance fund; and to establish the Art Design Board's jurisdiction in
the deaccessioning of artworks from the City's collection.
WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Chapter 2.30, of
the Salt Lake City Code, relating to funds for works of art; request for appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City recently increased the number of board
members for the Salt Lake Art Design Board from five to seven; and
WHEREAS , the City Council desires to increase the number of arts professionals and arts
administrators accordingly; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.30 of the Salt Lake City Code has allocated an amount equal to
one percent (1 % ) in the appropriation for capital improvements; and
WHEREAS , Salt Lake City has over 150 works of art in the collection but no funding to
maintain the works of art; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City values artists and their commissioned work, as well as
upholding the monetary and cultural value of a reputable collection; and
WHEREAS, as a program under the Department of Economic Development, the Public
Art Program plays a vital role in enlivening the various districts of Salt Lake City, enhancing
tourism, and supporting a diverse and rich cultural sphere where businesses and individuals can
thrive; and
WHEREAS, an increase in the contribution of appropriated capital improvement funds to
the City's Percent for Art Fund from one percent (1 %) to one-and one-half percent (1.5%)
allows appropriate management and care of the City's public art assets and ensure the works of
art continue to be cared for to enhance the City's civic spaces for future generations; and
WHEREAS, it is therefore necessary to maintain and care for the Public Art Collection as
a visual representation of the City's values and goals; arid
WHEREAS, Deaccession is the procedure for the permanent removal of an artwork from
the City's collection by selling, donating, or disposing of it; and
WHEREAS, the Art Design Board may develop and adopt a deaccession policy to
review, evaluate, and recommend the deaccession of a public artwork as approved by the Mayor.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.30.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to percent for
art fund, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:
2.30.040: ORGANIZATION; MEMBERSHIP; TERM:
A. The Art Design Board shall consist of seven (7) members chosen from a slate of qualified
candidates submitted by the Design Board in cooperation with the Council for the Arts. No
more than three (3) members shall be professional artists. No more than five (5) members
may be arts administrators or art teachers involved in the administration or teaching of art at
a recognized institution in the City. One member shall be an architect. Any remaining ·
members shall be citizens who are actively interested in the visual arts and civic
improvement from the City area, though no more than two (2) members shall be from the
same City Council district.
B. Appointments to the Art Design Board shall be made for terms of three (3) years each.
C. The Director of the Council for the Arts, or the Director's designee, shall serve as an ex
officio and nonvoting member to coordinate administrative responsibilities. One member
shall represent the Council for the Arts.
D. No member of the Design Board shall be permitted to receive or authorize any contracts for
any work of art, nor shall any member of the Design Board have any financial interest in or
2
benefits in any way financially from any work of art which is recommended, or from any
firm or person which receives any contract for such work of art from the City.
E. The Design Board shall have such funds, facilities, assistance and employees as may be
designated therefor from time to time by the Mayor.
F. The recommendations for selection of artists for works of art, by any reasonable method,
together with the reviewing of design, execution and placement, and the acceptance of works
of art and ornamentation shall be the responsibility of the Design Board in consultation with
the architects or managers for the project, and subject to final written approval in each
instance by the Mayor or the Mayor's designee.
G. Except for works of art donated to the City by a sister city, the Design Board shall be
responsible for the examination and acceptance or rejection of all works of art offered to the
City as a donation or gift. All such donations or gifts shall meet the same standards as
required for percent for arts selection.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 2.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to percent for
art fund, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:
2.30.050: JURISDICTION
The Design Board's jurisdiction shall be limited to:
A. Making recommendations to the Mayor with regard to the foregoing purposes with the final
decision concerning such recommendations and disbursements of all funds resting with the
Mayor;
B. Making operating expenditures subject to prior approval by the Mayor;
C. Recommending that the City contract, as needed, with individuals, businesses, agencies,
organizations or other groups, to render services to the Design Board or City relating to the
board's purposes.
D. Recommending a redesignation of funds to a different project or projects when the Design
Board determines that, in its opinion, the available funds for a specific improvement project
are insufficient or that a particular site is inappropriate for public art. (Ord. 67-13, 2013)
E. Recommending deaccession of works of art in the City' collection.
3
SECTION 3. That Chapter 230.060 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to percent for
art fund, and the sanie hereby is, amended as follows:
2.30.060: FUNDS FOR WORKS OF ART; REQUESTS FOR APPROPRIATIONS:
A. When so designated by the City Council, in its appropriation for capital improvements, all
City agencies and departments shall expend, as a nondeductible item out of any monies
appropriated for the planning, design and construction of construction projects, an amount
equal to one-and one-half percent (1.5%) of such appropriations for the acquisition and
installation of works of art and ornamentation, a portion of which will be deposited in the
· public art maintenance fund and used to provide maintenance for existing artworks. All
requests for appropriations for planning, design and construction of construction projects
from eligible funds except projects solely for water or sewer main installation or street
improvements, shall include an amount equal to one-and one-half percent (1.5%) of the
estimated cost of such project for such works of art, and shall be accompanied by a request
and specific recommendations from the Design Board for authorization to expend such
funds. When the City Council denies any such request, the appropriations for such
construction projects shall not include the appropriation of funds for works of art. Such funds
sh1:1ll be expended by the City upon recommendation of the Design Board.
SECTION 4. That Chapter 2.30.065 of the Salt Lake City Code, establishing the public
art' maintenance fund be enacted as follows:
2.30.065: PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE FUND; ESTABLISHED:
There is established in the city treasury a special fund designated "public art maintenance fund"
into which shall be deposited some portion of the funds and appropriations as contemplated by
section 2.30.060 of this chapter, or its successor. Separate accounts shall be established within
the public art maintenance funds to segregate receipts by source or when so directed by the
mayor for restoration or maintenance of specific works of art. Disbursement from such funds
shall be made in connection with projects approved by the design board, and the city finance
director shall draw and the city treasurer shall pay the necessary warrants and make the
necessary transfers of funds.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Irake City, Utah, this ___ day of _____ _
2020.
4
f
CHAIRPERSON
Transmitted to Mayor on _________ _
___ Approved. Mayor's Action: Vetoed. ---
MAYOR
ATTEST
CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM
(SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
Date: May 5, 2020
Bill No. of2020. ----
By :d1Wl!.~/J!.fi.4fft l
Megan J. DePaulis, Senior City Attorney
Published: ------
5
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2020
(An ordinance amending Chapter 2.30 of the Salt Lake City Code.)
An ordinance amending Chapter 2.30 of the Salt Lake City Code to increase the number
of board members permitted to be professional artists or arts administrators; to increase the
contribution of appropriated capital improvement funds to the City’s Percent for Art Fund; to
establish a public art maintenance fund; and to establish the Art Design Board’s jurisdiction in
the deaccessioning of artworks from the City’s collection.
WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Chapter 2.30, of
the Salt Lake City Code, relating to funds for works of art; request for appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City recently increased the number of board
members for the Salt Lake Art Design Board from five to seven; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to increase the number of arts professionals and arts
administrators accordingly; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.30 of the Salt Lake City Code has allocated an amount equal to
one percent (1%) in the appropriation for capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has over 150 works of art in the collection but no funding to
maintain the works of art; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City values artists and their commissioned work, as well as
upholding the monetary and cultural value of a reputable collection; and
WHEREAS, as a program under the Department of Economic Development, the Public
Art Program plays a vital role in enlivening the various districts of Salt Lake City, enhancing
tourism, and supporting a diverse and rich cultural sphere where businesses and individuals can
thrive; and
2
WHEREAS, an increase in the contribution of appropriated capital improvement funds to
the City’s Percent for Art Fund from one percent (1%) to one- and one-half percent (1.5%)
allows appropriate management and care of the City’s public art assets and ensure the works of
art continue to be cared for to enhance the City’s civic spaces for future generations; and
WHEREAS, it is therefore necessary to maintain and care for the Public Art Collection as
a visual representation of the City’s values and goals; and
WHEREAS, Deaccession is the procedure for the permanent removal of an artwork from
the City’s collection by selling, donating, or disposing of it; and
WHEREAS, the Art Design Board may develop and adopt a deaccession policy to
review, evaluate, and recommend the deaccession of a public artwork as approved by the Mayor.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.30.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to percent for
art fund, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:
2.30.040: ORGANIZATION; MEMBERSHIP; TERM:
A. The Art Design Board shall consist of seven (7) members chosen from a slate of qualified
candidates submitted by the Design Board in cooperation with the Council for the Arts. No
more than three (3) members shall be professional artists. No more than five (5) members
may be arts administrators or art teachers involved in the administration or teaching of art at
a recognized institution in the City. One member shall be an architect. Any remaining
members shall be citizens who are actively interested in the visual arts and civic
improvement from the City area, though no more than two (2) members shall be from the
same City Council district.
B. Appointments to the Art Design Board shall be made for terms of three (3) years each.
C. The Director of the Council for the Arts, or the Director's designee, shall serve as an ex
officio and nonvoting member to coordinate administrative responsibilities. One member
shall represent the Council for the Arts.
D. No member of the Design Board shall be permitted to receive or authorize any contracts for
any work of art, nor shall any member of the Design Board have any financial interest in or
3
benefits in any way financially from any work of art which is recommended, or from any
firm or person which receives any contract for such work of art from the City.
E. The Design Board shall have such funds, facilities, assistance and employees as may be
designated therefor from time to time by the Mayor.
F. The recommendations for selection of artists for works of art, by any reasonable method,
together with the reviewing of design, execution and placement, and the acceptance of works
of art and ornamentation shall be the responsibility of the Design Board in consultation with
the architects or managers for the project, and subject to final written approval in each
instance by the Mayor or the Mayor's designee.
G. Except for works of art donated to the City by a sister city, the Design Board shall be
responsible for the examination and acceptance or rejection of all works of art offered to the
City as a donation or gift. All such donations or gifts shall meet the same standards as
required for percent for arts selection.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 2.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to percent for
art fund, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:
2.30.050: JURISDICTION
The Design Board’s jurisdiction shall be limited to:
A. Making recommendations to the Mayor with regard to the foregoing purposes with the final
decision concerning such recommendations and disbursements of all funds resting with the
Mayor;
B. Making operating expenditures subject to prior approval by the Mayor;
C. Recommending that the City contract, as needed, with individuals, businesses, agencies,
organizations or other groups, to render services to the Design Board or City relating to the
board's purposes.
D. Recommending a redesignation of funds to a different project or projects when the Design
Board determines that, in its opinion, the available funds for a specific improvement project
are insufficient or that a particular site is inappropriate for public art. (Ord. 67-13, 2013)
E. Recommending deaccession of works of art in the City’ collection.
4
SECTION 3. That Chapter 2.30.060 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to percent for
art fund, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:
2.30.060: FUNDS FOR WORKS OF ART; REQUESTS FOR APPROPRIATIONS:
A. When so designated by the City Council, in its appropriation for capital improvements, all
City agencies and departments shall expend, as a nondeductible item out of any monies
appropriated for the planning, design and construction of construction projects, an amount
equal to one- and one-half percent (1.5%) of such appropriations for the acquisition and
installation of works of art and ornamentation, a portion of which will be deposited in the
public art maintenance fund and used to provide maintenance for existing artworks. All
requests for appropriations for planning, design and construction of construction projects
from eligible funds except projects solely for water or sewer main installation or street
improvements, shall include an amount equal to one- and one-half percent (1.5%) of the
estimated cost of such project for such works of art, and shall be accompanied by a request
and specific recommendations from the Design Board for authorization to expend such
funds. When the City Council denies any such request, the appropriations for such
construction projects shall not include the appropriation of funds for works of art. Such funds
shall be expended by the City upon recommendation of the Design Board.
SECTION 4. That Chapter 2.30.065 of the Salt Lake City Code, establishing the public
art maintenance fund be enacted as follows:
2.30.065: PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE FUND; ESTABLISHED:
There is established in the city treasury a special fund designated “public art maintenance fund”
into which shall be deposited some portion of the funds and appropriations as contemplated by
section 2.30.060 of this chapter, or its successor. Separate accounts shall be established within
the public art maintenance funds to segregate receipts by source or when so directed by the
mayor for restoration or maintenance of specific works of art. Disbursement from such funds
shall be made in connection with projects approved by the design board, and the city finance
director shall draw and the city treasurer shall pay the necessary warrants and make the
necessary transfers of funds.
SECTION 5. 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 ______________,
2020.
5
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2020.
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________
By:__________________________
Megan J. DePaulis, Senior City Attorney
LEGISLATIVE VERSION
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE1
No. _____ of 20202
3
(An ordinance amending Chapter 2.30 of the Salt Lake City Code.)4
5
An ordinance amending Chapter 2.30 of the Salt Lake City Code to increase the number 6
of board members permitted to be professional artists or arts administrators; to increase the 7
contribution of appropriated capital improvement funds to the City’s Percent for Art Fund; to 8
establish a public art maintenance fund; and to establish the Art Design Board’s jurisdiction in 9
the deaccessioning of artworks from the City’s collection. 10
WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, desires to amend Chapter 2.30, of 11
the Salt Lake City Code, relating to funds for works of art; request for appropriations; and12
WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City recently increased the number of board 13
members for the Salt Lake Art Design Board from five to seven; and 14
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to increase the number of arts professionals and arts 15
administrators accordingly; and 16
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.30 of the Salt Lake City Code has allocated an amount equal to 17
one percent (1%) in the appropriation for capital improvements; and18
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has over 150 works of art in the collection but no funding to 19
maintain the works of art; and 20
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City values artists and their commissioned work, as well as 21
upholding the monetary and cultural value of a reputable collection; and 22
WHEREAS, as a program under the Department of Economic Development, the Public 23
Art Program plays a vital role in enlivening the various districts of Salt Lake City, enhancing 24
tourism, and supporting a diverse and rich cultural sphere where businesses and individuals can 25
thrive; and26
2
WHEREAS, an increase in the contribution of appropriated capital improvement funds to 27
the City’s Percent for Art Fund from one percent (1%) to one- and one-half percent (1.5%) 28
allows appropriate management and care of the City’s public art assets and ensure the works of 29
art continue to be cared for to enhance the City’s civic spaces for future generations; and 30
WHEREAS, it is therefore necessary to maintain and care for the Public Art Collection as 31
a visual representation of the City’s values and goals; and32
WHEREAS, Deaccession is the procedure for the permanent removal of an artwork from 33
the City’s collection by selling, donating, or disposing of it; and34
WHEREAS, the Art Design Board may develop and adopt a deaccession policy to 35
review, evaluate, and recommend the deaccession of a public artwork as approved by the Mayor.36
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:37
SECTION 1. That Chapter 2.30.040 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to percent for 38
art fund, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:39
2.30.040: ORGANIZATION; MEMBERSHIP; TERM:40
41
A. The Art Design Board shall consist of seven (7) members chosen from a slate of qualified 42
candidates submitted by the Design Board in cooperation with the Council for the Arts. No 43
more than three (3) members shall be professional artists. No more than five (5) members 44
may be or arts administrators or art teachers involved in the administration or teaching of art 45
at a recognized institution in the City. One member shall be an architect. The Any remaining 46
members shall be citizens who are actively interested in the visual arts and civic 47
improvement from the City area, though no more than two (2) members shall be from the 48
same City Council district.49
50
B. Appointments to the Art Design Board shall be made for terms of three (3) years each.51
52
C. The Director of the Council for the Arts, or the Director's designee, shall serve as an ex 53
officio and nonvoting member to coordinate administrative responsibilities. One member 54
shall represent the Council for the Arts.55
56
D. No member of the Design Board shall be permitted to receive or authorize any contracts for 57
any work of art, nor shall any member of the Design Board have any financial interest in or 58
3
benefits in any way financially from any work of art which is recommended, or from any 59
firm or person which receives any contract for such work of art from the City.60
61
E. The Design Board shall have such funds, facilities, assistance and employees as may be 62
designated therefor from time to time by the Mayor.63
64
F. The recommendations for selection of artists for works of art, by any reasonable method, 65
together with the reviewing of design, execution and placement, and the acceptance of works 66
of art and ornamentation shall be the responsibility of the Design Board in consultation with 67
the architects or managers for the project, and subject to final written approval in each 68
instance by the Mayor or the Mayor's designee.69
70
G. Except for works of art donated to the City by a sister city, the Design Board shall be 71
responsible for the examination and acceptance or rejection of all works of art offered to the 72
City as a donation or gift. All such donations or gifts shall meet the same standards as 73
required for percent for arts selection. 74
75
76
SECTION 2. That Chapter 2.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to percent for 77
art fund, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:78
2.30.050: JURISDICTION79
The Design Board’s jurisdiction shall be limited to:80
A. Making recommendations to the Mayor with regard to the foregoing purposes with the final 81
decision concerning such recommendations and disbursements of all funds resting with the 82
Mayor;83
84
B. Making operating expenditures subject to prior approval by the Mayor;85
86
C. Recommending that the City contract, as needed, with individuals, businesses, agencies, 87
organizations or other groups, to render services to the Design Board or City relating to the 88
board's purposes.89
90
D.Recommending a redesignation of funds to a different project or projects when the Design 91
Board determines that, in its opinion, the available funds for a specific improvement project 92
are insufficient or that a particular site is inappropriate for public art. (Ord. 67-13, 2013)93
94
D.E. Recommending deaccession of works of art in the City’ collection. 95
96
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullets or
numbering
4
SECTION 3. That Chapter 2.30.060 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to percent for 97
art fund, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:98
2.30.060: FUNDS FOR WORKS OF ART; REQUESTS FOR APPROPRIATIONS:99
A. When so designated by the City Council, in its appropriation for capital improvements, all 100
City agencies and departments shall expend, as a nondeductible item out of any monies 101
appropriated for the planning, design and construction of construction projects, an amount 102
equal to one- and one- half percent (1.5%) of such appropriations for the acquisition and 103
installation of works of art and ornamentation., a portion of which will be deposited in the104
public art maintenance fund and used to provide maintenance for existing artworks.All 105
requests for appropriations for planning, design and construction of construction projects 106
from eligible funds except projects solely for water or sewer main installation or street 107
improvements, shall include an amount equal to one- and one-half percent (1.5%) of the 108
estimated cost of such project for such works of art, and shall be accompanied by a request 109
and specific recommendations from the Design Board for authorization to expend such 110
funds. When the City Council denies any such request, the appropriations for such 111
construction projects shall not include the appropriation of funds for works of art. Such funds 112
shall be expended by the City upon recommendation of the Design Board.113
114
115
SECTION 4. That Chapter 2.30.065 of the Salt Lake City Code, establishing the public 116
art maintenance fund be enacted as follows:117
2.30.065: PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE FUND; ESTABLISHED:118
119
There is established in the city treasury a special fund designated “public art maintenance fund” 120
into which shall be deposited some portion of the funds and appropriations as contemplated by 121
section 2.30.060 of this chapter, or its successor. Separate accounts shall be established within 122
the public art maintenance funds to segregate receipts by source or when so directed by the 123
mayor for restoration or maintenance of specific works of art. Disbursement from such funds 124
shall be made in connection with projects approved by the design board, and the city finance 125
director shall draw and the city treasurer shall pay the necessary warrants and make the 126
necessary transfers of funds. 127
128
129
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 130
first publication. 131
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 132
2020.133
5
134
______________________________135
CHAIRPERSON136
137
138
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.139
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.140
141
______________________________142
MAYOR143
ATTEST144
145
146
______________________________147
CITY RECORDER148
149
150
(SEAL)151
152
153
Bill No. ________ of 2020.154
Published: ______________.155
156
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________
By:__________________________
Megan J. DePaulis, Senior City Attorney
DOCUMENT ORGANIZATIONPREPARED BY
PROJECT OVERVIEW
DISTRICT SUMMARY
PEACE GARDEN NARRATIVE
PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA
PRIORITY RANKING LIST
CONDITION REPORTS
INDEX
Roni Thomas and Emily Stauff er
November 6, 2020
Dodworth & Stauff er Art Appraisal
and Consulting
dodworthart.com | 801.582.2787
Document 1 of 2
Contract Number 13-1-20-2412
Executed 6/10/2020
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Dodworth & Stauff er Art Appraisal and Consulting was contracted by Salt Lake City’s Public
Art Program Manager to perform assessment and condition reporting for 150 public artworks
that are located in City-owned parks, streets, plazas, and buildings and 92 artworks that are
located at the City & County Building. This document addresses the 150 items in the Public
Art Collection. In some cases, a project included mutiple elements or items that warranted
numerous individual condition reports for the single project. A summary of each district follows
with some general notes to identify unusual conditions, missing items, etc.
DISTRICT SUMMARY
DISTRICT ONE 6 Projects | 6 Condition Reports
DISTRICT TWO 24 Projects | 28 Condition Reports
• Please see our extensive notes regarding the International Peace Gardens and related
artwork in the separate narrative below.
DISTRICT THREE 9 Projects | 9 Condition Reports
• Two projects (Nebeker, Untitled Plaques and Davis, Dream Dog), at Warm Springs
Park have been removed and are currently in storage and/or missing. We did, however,
prepare condition reports with notes about each of these projects.
DISTRICT FOUR 80 Projects | 94 Condition Reports
• We included Gordon Forsyth’s Great Salt Lake Mirage in this category and removed it
from the inventory for the City & County Building Collection. It is currently located in the
Salt Lake City Arts Council Offi ce in District Four.
• We were unable to located Pierpont Benches by Thomas Tessman. Records indicate
that it was orginally installed on the Pierpont Walkway between 200 South and Pierpont
Avenue. We did, however, prepare a condition report with notes about this project to
document the date and general area searched.
• A number of items are not installed, but are stored at the Redevelopment Agency off -site
storage area located at 648 West 100 South in Salt Lake City. Housed there are Fruited
Plain II by Richard Johnston and Flight of Fancy by Holly Christmas. Condition reports
for these two pieces are included in this document.
• Bird in a Plane is stored outside at the same location, but we did not prepare a condition
report for this item as directed by the Public Art Program Manager. The support pole for
Bird in a Plane is installed at the HUB property. We also found the support poles and
labels for Another Piece of the Pie and Voyager (two other pieces in the Flying Object
series) stored in one of the RDA units. The accompanying sculptures were not located.
DISTRICT FIVE 14 Projects | 22 Condition Reports
DISTRICT SIX 6 Projects | 7 Condition Reports
DISTRICT SEVEN 13 Projects | 15 Condition Reports
INTERNATIONAL PEACE GARDEN SUMMARY NOTES
We reviewed twelve public artworks and/or gardens in the International Peace Gardens
located at 1160 South Dalton Avenue on August 4, 2020. Condition reports were completed
for the items listed on the Maintenance Assessment spreadsheet provided by the Public Art
Program Manager.
China: Chinese Lions
Denmark: The Little Mermaid
India: Preaching Buddha
Ireland: Irish Cross
Japan: Japanese Lanterns
Korea: Spirit Poles
Mexico: Olmec Head replica
Norway: Bauta Stone
Russia: Peace Cradle
Scotland: Dolman Replica
Switzerland: Matterhorn replica
Undesignated: The Dawn of A New Era: Peace
Two gardens, Mexico and India, had additional artworks which were not included on the Main-
tenance Assessment spreadsheet and, therefore, we did not review those artworks.
We made note of, but did not review, the following seventeen gardens. Seven gardens did
have artwork, while the other gardens were designated with plantings and/or country fl ags.
Africa: Granite plaque
France: Eiff el Tower replica
Great Britain: Bust of Margaret Thatcher
Greece: Statue with plaques
Italy: Mosaic tile map of Italy
Vietnam: Two carved / painted lions
Wales: Harp sculpture
Brazil
Canada
Finland
Germany
Holland
Lebanon
Philippines
Sweden
Tonga
United States
PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA
The subject properties were inspected by Emily Stauff er and Roni Thomas between July 2 and
October 10, 2020. At each site, the artwork was inspected and evaluated for issues associated
with its structure, surface, installation and/or base and surroundings.
Condition issues were documented in written condition reports including photographs, where
applicable. Each artwork was assigned a Priority Code Ranking from 1 to 4 with notes on
each item’s installation and condition with recommended actions for maintenance and repair.
We also compiled a list of artwork with plaques that are missing or damaged and should be
replaced.
The criteria for each of the priority codes are as follows:
[1] Immediate action: structural issues, visually unsightly
[2] Moderate action: peeling paint, early corrosion, etc.
[3] Cleaning / waxing
[4] Condition acceptable
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Chubin, Wayne Friends of the Park (Herman
Franks Park)
COULD NOT LOCATE. This should be deaccessioned from
the collection.
Eddy, Dave Red Fans Sculpture needs to be removed and repainted. The pole
needs a drainage hole and should be repainted. Consider
redesigning/replacing plaque so all sculpture plaques are
consistent on West Temple.
Ellison, Robert Tweak 360 Clean and repaint the sculpture.
Gerhart, Dan Flying Fish Repaint support pole and drill hole for drainage. Replace
plaque.
Heath, Paul; Nowlin, Linda;
Fischman, Louise; Geary,
Wayne
Untitled at Bend in the River Very poor condition. The bench has been heavily tagged
and the surrounding area is littered with debris and trash.
Extremely unsightly. Replace plaque.
Hess, John Eurhythmy Remove the missing frame from the wall. Consider
reinstalling the remaining five pieces in another location in
the building. Replace plaque.
Jones, Ben & Stevens
Jones, Carey
Fire House Fire Decision should be made whether this artwork should
remain at this location if it will not be cared for by the Station.
Alternatively, contract with the Neon sign company to
maintain.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Children's
Garden (Sculpted Silhouettes)
Of the eight poles, only three have sculptures (train engine,
bird, race car). Locate silhouettes that have been purposely
removed, repair and replace. Or, re-fabricate and install.
Base of poles are marred and beginning to rust from
damage likely caused by lawn equipment. Refinish base of
damaged poles and drill drainage holes to prevent possible
structural instability.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Light
Sculpture
Remove tape from north grouping. Consider trimming tree
branches away from poles in south grouping. Repair light
elements or replace bulbs.
Nebeker, Kinde Untitled DID NOT REVIEW. Seven plaques are located at Metal Arts
Foundry; the remaining seven were stolen. A decision
should be made as to the future of the project. If these
plaques are not going to be refabricated and/or reinstalled,
consider deaccessioning from the collection.
Soelberg, Douglas Deadly Virtues This was vandalized in May 2020. There are two broken
glass panels which need to recommissioned and replaced.
Replace plaque.
Swain, John Untitled Clean, strip and repaint. Replace plaque.
Tessman, Thomas Pierpont Benches COULD NOT LOCATE. Consider deaccessioning this from
the collection if it cannot be found.
Thelander, Eric Sugar House Benches Remove / destroy benches. They should be deaccessioned
from the collection.
PRIORITY 1: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Allen, Sam Untitled Clean and repaint. Replace plaque.
Barley, Ethan Anthocyanin Repainting is recommended to prevent additional paint loss.
Christensen, Day Trees (Maple)Address the rust issues at the rear leg and determine
whether there is further deterioration.
Christmas, Holly Flight of Fancy Clean the surface and repair the top element prior to
installation.
Chubin, Wayne &
Gallagher, Tim
Signal Site Straighten the four leaning poles. Replace all base plates or
remove the existing twenty-four (five are missing) for visual
continuity. The plates do not provide any structural support
to the poles.
Davis, Silvia Answering the Call Reattach wood chip at base.
Davis, Silvia & Jacobs, Jim Crystal Grate Shore up center of six grates; locate two missing grates;
replace plaque.
DeDecker, Jane Through the Shelter of Love Repair stone work in text ring. Replace plaque.
Dolinger, Ed Untitled The gazebo and artwork should be repainted. Replace
plaque.
Fairbanks, Avard T.The Dawn of a New Era: Peace Clean and repaint figures on the sculpture. Monitor annually
for further deterioration.
Fuhriman, Jerry & Taylor,
Arthur
Missy's Rocket The pole needs a drainage hole and should be repainted.
Replace plaque.
Furches, Clay Untitled (Tree Grates & Manhole
Covers)
Clean debris from under grates, remove survey paint, check
for cracked grates. Replace plaque.
Hadlock, Neil Portal Repair grout and fill holes with concrete; replace plaque.
Heath, Paul; Nowlin, Linda;
Fischman, Louise; Geary,
Wayne
Untitled, Labyrinth Missing tiles should be replaced on the benches and in the
circle. Broken bench should be repaired to limit further
deterioration of the bench. Clean graffiti.
Johansen, Nate Box Elder Seed Drill drainage hole in support pole. Consider
redesigning/replacing plaque so all sculpture plaques are
consistent on West Temple.
Johansen, Nate Last to Launch Drill hole in support pole for drainage. Touch up paint on
pole. Replace plaque.
Johansen, Nathan &
Johansen, Hannah
Tumbleweeds Drill drainage hole in support pole.
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Spurt Remove graffiti from back and ends. The section that paint
has been scraped off must be repainted.
Kwon, Soonju Flow Drill drainage hole in support pole.
Littig, William R.Lupita, the Woman Repaint the base of the sculpture. Replace plaque.
Littig, William R. & Flores-
Sahagun, Bernardo
Guardians Repaint sculptures and replace plaque.
PRIORITY 2: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Little, Tim Huey the Utah Cricket The pole needs a drainage hole and should be repainted.
Replace plaque.
McBeth, James Utah Sandscape Both sides of the bridge; replace concrete on the wire mesh.
Divert sprinklers away from the walls.
O'Very Covey, Traci Drinking It In The pole needs a drainage hole and should be repainted.
Replace plaque.
Ragland, Greg No Salt Just Pepper; Three Peas
in a Pod; Starters
Repair ends of Three Peas in a Pod . Replace plaque.
Riddle, John & Heath, Paul 200 West Planters Replace the broken planters. Repaint areas on other
planters that have paint loss and/or abrasions. Find suitable
location for plaque.
Robertson, Brook On Broadway Drill drainage hole in support pole.
Smith, Dennis Stargazer Drill drainage hole in support pole.
Taylor, Cordell Space Junke Repaint pole, drill hole for drainage. Consider
redesigning/replacing plaque so all sculpture plaques are
consistent on West Temple.
Taylor, Cordell Order to Chaos Steel should be repainted/powder coated after
repair/replacement of corroded areas. Replace plaque.
Thomas, Darl Sky Sled Repaint support pole. Consider redesigning/replacing plaque
so all sculpture plaques are consistent on West Temple.
Tooza Design / Beishline,
Rob & Shelley
Transformation Drill drainage hole in support pole.
Unknown Matterhorn Replica Clean and repaint the back of the sculpture to cover peeling
paint.
Unknown Herman Franks Clean area at sculpture/base. Consider having a bat
fabricated and installed to replace the missing one.
Unknown Irish Cross Corrosion is occurring; repair and repaint the sculpture.
Unknown Olmec Head Replica Repair broken chips on nose / lip area. Clean and repaint
the head once repairs are complete.
Unknown Japanese Lanterns The pillars that show signs of flaking concrete should be
addressed to avoid further deterioration. Check the water
spray direction of the sprinkler heads. Repair the concrete
on the pillars.
PRIORITY 2: Maintenance Recommendations [continued]
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Caravaglia, Angelo Flight Clean sculpture, replace plaque.
Christensen, Day Story Wall Clean / wax. Re-affix two panels.
Christensen, Day Dairy Cats Clean paint from turquoise cat.
Christensen, Day Trees (Ash)Cleaning and waxing would remove water spotting and bring
patina up in quality.
Christensen, Day Trees (Elm)Remove graffiti, clean and wax.
Christensen, Day & Sucec,
Bonnie
Untitled (Glass Walls)Clean glass.
Chubin, Wayne Friends of the Park (Washington
Park)
Clean and repaint the frame. Replace plaque.
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Sandstone & cast
bronze branch frame benches)
Clean and remove graffiti. Replace plaque.
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Curved sandstone
benches with bronze branch
elements)
Clean to remove surface soiling and graffiti. Replace plaque.
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Low bronze benches) Clean, buff and wax. Replace plaque.
Gerhart, Dan Gambel's Quail Repair broken top knot. Clean the moderate water spotting
on both sculptures. Replace plaque.
Glassman, Stephen SK8I80 Clean / wax. Remove shoes and strip the paint on the
support pole.
Hess, John & Higbee,
Benjamin
Courage Under Fire Clean the staining from the base of the bench. Cleaning the
stainless and glass is also recommended.
Kaliser, Bruce Description of a Fault Repaint frame; buff plexiglas. Replace plaque.
Kougioumtzis, Pavlos Prometheus Fire Bearing Clean spray paint off; replace plaque.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Children's
Garden (Steel Angles)
Clean to remove graffiti and hard water spots. Repair deep
gouge at base. Consult with structural engineer to determine
if drainage holes are recommended for this installation.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Water
Feature
Could use surface cleaning to remove powdery orange
dirt/dust.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Stone
Markers
Hard water staining or surface soiling could be cleaned.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Rio Plaza
Benches
Installation would benefit from a thorough cleaning.
PRIORITY 3: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Littig, William R. & Srok,
Nate
Lady and Dog Clean graffiti from sculpture.
Littig, William R. & Srok,
Nate
UTAH ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND
DINOSAURS
Remove paint from rocks and clean plaques.
Living Lenses - Wang, Po
Shu & Bertelsen, Louise
Wave Harmonics Clean, polish and wax. Replace plaque.
Lucas, Lark Untitled Remove glue from text panel. Silicone tiles to prevent further
chipping. Replace plaque.
Moonbird, Michael & Lyons,
Victoria
Sun, Moon & All Things In-
Between
Patch grout along bottom edge of mural.
Ragland, Greg Serve & Protect This was vandalized in May 2020. It was cleaned once but
needs additional cleaning to remove paint. Should also be
waxed. Replace plaque.
Smith, Dennis Peace Cradle (Peace Gardens)Clean and wax. One string is partially missing and does not
pose any structural issues. If cost to repair allows, it could be
replaced.
Strand, Mark River of Words Clean hard water deposit on tiles. Repair broken water
features.
Sucec, David Sidewalk Piece in Parts Clean, replace broken elements if possible. Replace plaque
if suitable location can be determined.
Thomas, Darl Faultline Clean and wax. Repaint the base. Replace plaque.
Varner, Kraig Children of Light Clean; remove wax from figure's teeth.
Volkommer, Mia Three Eyes Clean graffiti from sculpture.
PRIORITY 3: Maintenance Recommendations [continued]
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Davis, Silvia Dream Dog (Warm Springs Park) DID NOT REVIEW. Removed from Warm Springs Park.
Currently stored at Parks Department until a new installation
site can be identified. Replace plaque when reinstalled.
Goldsmith, Stephen Untitled (Pierpont walkway) Check water distribution spouts for blockages. Replace
plantings if that was an integral part of the artist's vision.
Replace plaque.
Johnston, Richard Fruited Plain II Stored in an RDA warehouse since 2011. If this will not be
reinstalled, consider deaccessioning from the collection. If
reinstalled, replace plaque.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks (Overall)Design plaques and/or signage throughout the project.
Littig, William R. & Flores-
Sahagun, Bernardo
Anagrams We recommend not removing or repairing the existing
artwork until Sugar House construction is completed.
Matsubayashi, Kazuo Asteroid Landed Softly Lights are all off, confirm reason with Gallivan. Replace
plaque.
Pace, John & Associates /
Shaw, John
Water Walk Repaint rims of light fixtures.
Simpson, Buster Presence If possible, divert sprinklers from concrete base to avoid
further discoloration.
Snow, V. Doug Untitled Monitor annually for adhesion issues.
Thomas, Ivana Oblonsky City Birds Consider redesigning/replacing plaque so all sculpture
plaques are consistent on West Temple.
Tylevich, Alexander Through the Safety Lens Chip found in glass. Monitor annually to check for further
(though unlikely) cracking. Replace plaque.
PRIORITY 4: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE
Blackner, Elizabeth & Boyd; Swain, John; Goldsmith,
Stephen
Seven Canyons Fountain
Davis, Silvia Dream Dog (Fairmont Park)
Davis, Silvia Jack
Delgado, Roberto L.Citywalk Site Design 30
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Irregular shaped bronze benches)
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary III
Gerhart, Dan Pythagoras (Medallions)
Gerhart, Dan Pythagoras (Sphere)
Hadlock, Neil An Urban Allegory
Johnston, Richard Arch
Johnston, Richard Untitled (Bird)
Juhlin, Jeff Children's Wall
Juhlin, Jeff Fireman
Juhlin, Jeff Fireman Cutout
Littig, William R. Untitled (Fire Station #4)
Littig, William R. & Heath, Paul Lantern
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Caliope)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Clio)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Erato)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Euterpe)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Melomene)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Polyhymnia)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Terpsichore)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Thalia)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Urania)
Pursley, David Untitled
Ragland, Greg Expression
Ragland, Greg Happy-Go-Lucky
Riggs, Frank Untitled
Roper, Helen "Jo"Untitled
Taylor, Cordell Indiana Bridge
Tessman, Thomas Hearts
Tessman, Thomas Rococo-coco
Thomas, Darl Skeleton
Thomas, Darl Windwheel #9
Volkommer, Mia Pair of Eyes
PRIORITY 4: No Issues
ARTIST TITLE
Barley, Ethan Mandala Lantern
Barley, Ethan Torsion
Beatlebrox, Zafod Dare to Swim Upstream with Style
Bjorch, Randi A.Bauta Stone
Blackerby, Ric Tango
Budd, Spencer Whirl Wind
Christensen, Day High Water
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Hidden Hollow)
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Sprague Library)
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Sugar House Commons)
PRIORITY 4: Plaque Replacement Only
PRIORITY 4: No Issues [continued]
ARTIST TITLE
Christensen, Day Trees (Sycamore)
Christensen, Day Wildlife Wall
Eriksen, Edvard The Little Mermaid
Fairbanks, Ortho Our Little Angel
Flack, McGarren Day Goes By
Forsyth, Gordon Great Salt Lake Mirage
Fraughton, Ed Parley Pratt
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary II
Hale, Girard Mrs. E.O. Howard
Hess, John Jigsaw
Johansen, Nathan & Johansen, Hannah Impact
Kass, Thomas Spirit Poles
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Cascade
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Cog
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Trough
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Dog park)
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Jordan River Trail)
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Pavillion)
Kwon, Soonju A Piece of Sky
Landmark Design, Christensen, Day; Sucec, Bonnie;
Coles, Katie; Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Sandstone
Littig, William R.Untitled (4th Avenue Stairs)
Littig, William R.Untitled (Reservoir Park)
Littig, William R. & Flores-Sahagun, Bernardo Untitled (Sorenson Unity Center)
Littig, William R. & Srok, Nate Tortoise and Hair
Little, Tim Steamed Up
Malin, Millard Fillmore Sugarhouse Pioneer Monument
Matsubayashi, Kazuo Dancing Clowns
O'Very Covey, Traci Imagine
Robertson, Brook A Bee-autiful Hive
Schultz, James & Neofitos, Evangelos The Humble Bee
Smith, Dennis Peace Cradle (Gallivan Plaza)
Smith, Dennis The Doll and Dare
Stedham, Kathryn Highway, Byway; Blue Line; Roads & Rivers; Landing
Taylor, Brad & Buxton, Kerri Untitled (Pavers)
Tooza Design / Beishline, Rob & Shelley Urban Ear
Vienneau, Nick Bike Hive
Vienneau, Nick Chains
Wischer, Wendy Currents
Unknown Chinese Lions
Unknown Dolman Replica
Unknown Preaching Buddha
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Great Salt Lake Mirage
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Artist: Gerhart, Dan
Title: Gambel's Quail
Salt Lake City Public Ar1 Collection
CONDITION REPORT
Year: 2009
Location: Davis Park, one at Northwest comer and one at South comer
Address: 2000 East 900 South Zlpcode: 84108
Medium: cast bronze
Dimensions:
Artwork Two cast bronze sculptures; one of adult & chick and one of two District: 6
Description: adults & two chicks. Mounted on concrete bases. Plaque: none found
CONDITION SUMMARY: Very Good X Good _ Fair _ Poor _
Overall very good condition with natural wear of patina. Plaque has been
unbolted from concrete pad.
FRAME: Gla99 _ Plexiglas&_ Unframed _
SCULPTURE:
BASE: Good condition. Plaque missing from NW corner base.
STRUCTURAL ISSUES: Disjoined; Cracks; Erosion; Broken/Missing Parts; Corrosion/Rust;
~dalism; Previous Repairs; Other
SURFACE ISSUES: Deformation; Abrasions; Soil; Rust; Chips I Losses; Spalling; Peeling;
Discoloration/Staining; Pitting/Etching; Graffiti; Other
plaque missing from
this base
MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS I NOTES:
2 DIMENSIONAL WORKS:
Soil; Abrasions; Accretion;
Flaking; Discoloration:
Blistering; Brittle; Bulge;
Crackling; Crazing; Crease;
Scratches; Stretcher Mark;
Tear/Puncture; Warping; Other
PRIORITY: 3
1) Immediate action (structural
iHuee, vi•ually uneighUy,
public safety hazard)
2) Moderate action (peeling
paint, early corrosion)
3) Cleaning I waxing
Moderate water spotting on both
sculptures. Replace plaque.
4) Condition acceptable
Shortly after the sculptures were installed, three of the chicks on the south comer sculpture were stolen and never recovered. If funding
exists, consider commissioning artist to fabricate the missing chicks. Repair broken top knot. Clean the moderate water spotting on both
sculptures.Replace plaque.
Date of Inspection: 7/812020 Inspected By: Roni Thomas
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Imagine
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
CONDITION REPORT INDEX | PUBLIC ART DOCUMENT
ARTIST TITLE PAGE #
Column1 Column2 Column3
Allen, Sam Untitled 1
Barley, Ethan Anthocyanin 2
Barley, Ethan Mandala Lantern 3
Barley, Ethan Torsion 4
Beatlebrox, Zafod Dare to Swim Upstream with Style 5
Bjorch, Randi A.Bauta Stone 6
Blackerby, Ric Tango 7
Blackner, Swain, Goldsmith Seven Canyons Fountain 8
Budd, Spencer Whirl Wind 9
Caravaglia, Angelo Flight 10
Christensen, Day Dairy Cats 11
Christensen, Day High Water 12
Christensen, Day Story Wall 13
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Hidden Hollow) 14
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Sprague Library) 15
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Sugar House Commons) 16
Christensen, Day Trees (Ash)17
Christensen, Day Trees (Elm)18
Christensen, Day Trees (Maple)19
Christensen, Day Trees (Sycamore)20
Christensen, Day Wildlife Wall 21
Christensen, Day & Sucec, Bonnie Untitled (Glass Walls)22
Christmas, Holly Flight of Fancy 23
Chubin, Wayne Friends of the Park (Herman Franks Park) 24
Chubin, Wayne Friends of the Park (Washington Park) 25
Chubin, Wayne & Gallagher, Tim Signal Site 26
Davis, Silvia Answering the Call 27
Davis, Silvia Dream Dog (Fairmont Park) 28
Davis, Silvia Dream Dog (Warm Springs Park) 29
Davis, Silvia Jack 30
Davis, Silvia & Jacobs, Jim Crystal Grate 31
DeDecker, Jane Through the Shelter of Love 32
Delgado, Roberto L.Citywalk Site Design 30 33
Dolinger, Ed Untitled 34
Eddy, Dave Red Fans 35
Ellison, Robert Tweak 360 36
Eriksen, Edvard The Little Mermaid 37
Dodworth Stauffer | 801.582.2787 | www.dodworthart.com
CONDITION REPORT INDEX | PUBLIC ART DOCUMENT
ARTIST TITLE PAGE #
Fairbanks, Avard T.The Dawn of a New Era: Peace 38
Fairbanks, Ortho Our Little Angel 39
Flack, McGarren Day Goes By 40
Forsyth, Gordon Great Salt Lake Mirage 41
Fraughton, Ed Parley Pratt 42
Fuhriman, Jerry & Taylor, Arthur Missy's Rocket 43
Furches, Clay Untitled (Tree Grates & Manhole Covers)44
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Curved sandstone benches ) 45
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Irregular shaped bronze benches) 46
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Low bronze benches) 47
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Sandstone & cast bronze benches) 48
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary 49
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary II 50
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary III 51
Gerhart, Dan Flying Fish 52
Gerhart, Dan Gambel's Quail 53
Gerhart, Dan Pythagoras (Medallions)54
Gerhart, Dan Pythagoras (Sphere)55
Glassman, Stephen SK8I80 56
Goldsmith, Stephen Untitled (Pierpont walkway)57
Hadlock, Neil An Urban Allegory 58
Hadlock, Neil Portal 59
Hale, Girard Mrs. E.O. Howard 60
Heath, Nowlin, Fischman, Geary Untitled at Bend in the River 61
Heath, Nowlin, Fischman, Geary Untitled, Labyrinth 62-63
Hess, John Eurhythmy 64
Hess, John Jigsaw 65
Hess, John & Higbee, Benjamin Courage Under Fire 66
Johansen, Nathan Box Elder Seed 67
Johansen, Nathan Last to Launch 68
Johansen, Nathan & Johansen, Hannah Impact 69
Johansen, Nathan & Johansen, Hannah Tumbleweeds 70
Johnston, Richard Arch 71
Johnston, Richard Fruited Plain II 72
Johnston, Richard Untitled (Bird)73
Jones, Ben & Stevens Jones, Carey Fire House Fire 74
Juhlin, Jeff Children's Wall 75
Juhlin, Jeff Fireman 76
Dodworth Stauffer | 801.582.2787 | www.dodworthart.com
CONDITION REPORT INDEX | PUBLIC ART DOCUMENT
ARTIST TITLE PAGE #
Juhlin, Jeff Fireman Cutout 77
Kaliser, Bruce Description of a Fault 78
Kass, Thomas Spirit Poles 79
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Cascade 80
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Cog 81
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Spurt 82
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Trough 83
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Dog park) 84
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Jordan River Trail) 85
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Pavilion) 86
Kougioumtzis, Pavlos Prometheus Fire Bearing 87
Kwon, Soonju A Piece of Sky 88
Kwon, Soonju Flow 89
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks (Overall)90
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Children's Garden (silhouettes)91
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Children's Garden (steel angles)92
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Light Sculpture 93
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Rio Plaza with Benches 94
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Sandstone 95
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Stone Markers 96
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Water Feature 97
Littig, William R.Lupita, the Woman 98
Littig, William R.Untitled (4th Avenue Stairs) 99
Littig, William R. Untitled (Fire Station #4) 100
Littig, William R.Untitled (Reservoir Park) 101
Littig & Flores-Sahagun Anagrams 102-107
Littig & Flores-Sahagun Guardians 108
Littig & Flores-Sahagun Untitled (Sorenson Unity Center) 109
Littig, William R. & Heath, Paul Lantern 110
Littig, William R. & Srok, Nate Lady and Dog 111
Littig, William R. & Srok, Nate Tortoise and Hair 112
Littig, William R. & Srok, Nate UTAH ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND DINOSAURS 113
Little, Tim Huey the Utah Cricket 114
Little, Tim Steamed Up 115
Living Lenses Wave Harmonics 116
Lucas, Lark Untitled 117
Malin, Millard Fillmore Sugarhouse Pioneer Monument 118
Matsubayashi, Kazuo Asteroid Landed Softly 119
Dodworth Stauffer | 801.582.2787 | www.dodworthart.com
CONDITION REPORT INDEX | PUBLIC ART DOCUMENT
ARTIST TITLE PAGE #
Matsubayashi, Kazuo Dancing Clowns 120
McBeth, James Utah Sandscape 121
Moonbird, Michael & Lyons, Victoria Sun, Moon & All Things In-Between 122
Nebeker, Kinde Untitled 123
O'Very Covey, Traci Drinking It In 124
O'Very Covey, Traci Imagine 125
Pace, John & Associates / Shaw, John Water Walk 126
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Caliope)127
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Clio)128
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Erato)129
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Euterpe)130
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Melomene)131
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Polyhymnia)132
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Terpsichore)133
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Thalia)134
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Urania)135
Pursley, David Untitled 136
Ragland, Greg Expression 137
Ragland, Greg Happy-Go-Lucky 138
Ragland, Greg No Salt Just Pepper; Three Peas in a Pod; Starters 139
Ragland, Greg Serve & Protect 140
Riddle, John & Heath, Paul 200 West Planters 141
Riggs, Frank Untitled 142
Robertson, Brook A Bee-autiful Hive 143
Robertson, Brook On Broadway 144
Roper, Helen "Jo"Untitled 145
Schultz, James & Neofitos, Evangelos The Humble Bee 146
Simpson, Buster Presence 147
Smith, Dennis Peace Cradle (Gallivan Plaza) 148
Smith, Dennis Peace Cradle (Peace Gardens) 149
Smith, Dennis Stargazer 150
Smith, Dennis The Doll and Dare 151
Snow, V. Doug Untitled 152
Soelberg, Douglas Deadly Virtues 153
Stedham, Kathryn Highway, Byway; Blue Line; Roads & Rivers; Landing 154
Strand, Mark River of Words 155
Sucec, David Sidewalk Piece in Parts 156
Swain, John Untitled 157
Dodworth Stauffer | 801.582.2787 | www.dodworthart.com
CONDITION REPORT INDEX | PUBLIC ART DOCUMENT
ARTIST TITLE PAGE #
Taylor, Brad & Buxton, Kerri Untitled (Pavers)158
Taylor, Cordell Indiana Bridge 159
Taylor, Cordell Order to Chaos 160
Taylor, Cordell Space Junke 161
Tessman, Thomas Hearts 162
Tessman, Thomas Pierpont Benches 163
Tessman, Thomas Rococo-coco 164
Thelander, Eric Sugar House Benches 165
Thomas, Darl Faultline 166
Thomas, Darl Skeleton 167
Thomas, Darl Sky Sled 168
Thomas, Darl Windwheel #9 169
Thomas, Ivana Oblonsky City Birds 170
Tooza Design / Beishline, Rob & Shelley Transformation 171
Tooza Design / Beishline, Rob & Shelley Urban Ear 172
Tylevich, Alexander Through the Safety Lens 173
Varner, Kraig Children of Light 174
Vienneau, Nick Bike Hive 175
Vienneau, Nick Chains 176
Volkommer, Mia Pair of Eyes 177
Volkommer, Mia Three Eyes 178
Wischer, Wendy Currents 179
Unknown Chinese Lions 180
Unknown Dolman Replica 181
Unknown Herman Franks 182
Unknown Irish Cross 183
Unknown Japanese Lanterns 184-185
Unknown Matterhorn Replica 186
Unknown Olmec Head Replica 187
Unknown Preaching Buddha 188
Dodworth Stauffer | 801.582.2787 | www.dodworthart.com
PRIORITY 1: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Chubin, Wayne Friends of the Park (Herman
Franks Park)
COULD NOT LOCATE. This should be deaccessioned
from the collection.
Eddy, Dave Red Fans Sculpture needs to be removed and repainted. The pole
needs a drainage hole and should be repainted. Consider
redesigning/replacing plaque so all sculpture plaques are
consistent on West Temple.
Ellison, Robert Tweak 360 Clean and repaint the sculpture.
Gerhart, Dan Flying Fish Repaint support pole and drill hole for drainage. Replace
plaque.
Heath, Paul; Nowlin,
Linda; Fischman, Louise;
Geary, Wayne
Untitled at Bend in the River Very poor condition. The bench has been heavily tagged
and the surrounding area is littered with debris and trash.
Extremely unsightly. Replace plaque.
Hess, John Eurhythmy Remove the missing frame from the wall. Consider
reinstalling the remaining five pieces in another location in
the building. Replace plaque.
Jones, Ben & Stevens
Jones, Carey
Fire House Fire Decision should be made whether this artwork should
remain at this location if it will not be cared for by the
Station. Alternatively, contract with the Neon sign company
to maintain.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks:
Children's Garden (Sculpted
Silhouettes)
Of the eight poles, only three have sculptures (train
engine, bird, race car). Locate silhouettes that have been
purposely removed, repair and replace. Or, re-fabricate
and install. Base of poles are marred and beginning to rust
from damage likely caused by lawn equipment. Refinish
base of damaged poles and drill drainage holes to prevent
possible structural instability.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Light
Sculpture
Remove tape from north grouping. Consider trimming tree
branches away from poles in south grouping. Repair light
elements or replace bulbs.
Nebeker, Kinde Untitled DID NOT REVIEW. Seven plaques are located at Metal
Arts Foundry; the remaining seven were stolen. A decision
should be made as to the future of the project. If these
plaques are not going to be refabricated and/or reinstalled,
consider deaccessioning from the collection.
Soelberg, Douglas Deadly Virtues This was vandalized in May 2020. There are two broken
glass panels which need to recommissioned and replaced.
Replace plaque.
Swain, John Untitled Clean, strip and repaint. Replace plaque.
Tessman, Thomas Pierpont Benches COULD NOT LOCATE. Consider deaccessioning this from
the collection if it cannot be found.
Thelander, Eric Sugar House Benches Remove / destroy benches. They should be
deaccessioned from the collection.
PRIORITY 2: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Allen, Sam Untitled Clean and repaint. Replace plaque.
Barley, Ethan Anthocyanin Repainting is recommended to prevent additional paint
loss.
Christensen, Day Trees (Maple)Address the rust issues at the rear leg and determine
whether there is further deterioration.
Christmas, Holly Flight of Fancy Clean the surface and repair the top element prior to
installation.
Chubin, Wayne &
Gallagher, Tim
Signal Site Straighten the four leaning poles. Replace all base plates
or remove the existing twenty-four (five are missing) for
visual continuity. The plates do not provide any structural
support to the poles.
Davis, Silvia Answering the Call Reattach wood chip at base.
Davis, Silvia & Jacobs, Jim Crystal Grate Shore up center of six grates; locate two missing grates;
replace plaque.
DeDecker, Jane Through the Shelter of Love Repair stone work in text ring. Replace plaque.
Dolinger, Ed Untitled The gazebo and artwork should be repainted. Replace
plaque.
Fairbanks, Avard T.The Dawn of a New Era: Peace Clean and repaint figures on the sculpture. Monitor
annually for further deterioration.
Fuhriman, Jerry & Taylor,
Arthur
Missy's Rocket The pole needs a drainage hole and should be repainted.
Replace plaque.
Furches, Clay Untitled (Tree Grates & Manhole
Covers)
Clean debris from under grates, remove survey paint,
check for cracked grates. Replace plaque.
Hadlock, Neil Portal Repair grout and fill holes with concrete; replace plaque.
Heath, Paul; Nowlin,
Linda; Fischman, Louise;
Geary, Wayne
Untitled, Labyrinth Missing tiles should be replaced on the benches and in the
circle. Broken bench should be repaired to limit further
deterioration of the bench. Clean graffiti.
Johansen, Nate Box Elder Seed Drill drainage hole in support pole. Consider
redesigning/replacing plaque so all sculpture plaques are
consistent on West Temple.
Johansen, Nate Last to Launch Drill hole in support pole for drainage. Touch up paint on
pole. Replace plaque.
Johansen, Nathan &
Johansen, Hannah
Tumbleweeds Drill drainage hole in support pole.
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Spurt Remove graffiti from back and ends. The section that paint
has been scraped off must be repainted.
Kwon, Soonju Flow Drill drainage hole in support pole.
Littig, William R.Lupita, the Woman Repaint the base of the sculpture. Replace plaque.
Littig, William R. & Flores-
Sahagun, Bernardo
Guardians Repaint sculptures and replace plaque.
PRIORITY 2: Maintenance Recommendations [continued]
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Little, Tim Huey the Utah Cricket The pole needs a drainage hole and should be repainted.
Replace plaque.
McBeth, James Utah Sandscape Both sides of the bridge; replace concrete on the wire
mesh. Divert sprinklers away from the walls.
O'Very Covey, Traci Drinking It In The pole needs a drainage hole and should be repainted.
Replace plaque.
Ragland, Greg No Salt Just Pepper; Three
Peas in a Pod; Starters
Repair ends of Three Peas in a Pod. Replace plaque.
Riddle, John & Heath,
Paul
200 West Planters Replace the broken planters. Repaint areas on other
planters that have paint loss and/or abrasions. Find
suitable location for plaque.
Robertson, Brook On Broadway Drill drainage hole in support pole.
Smith, Dennis Stargazer Drill drainage hole in support pole.
Taylor, Cordell Space Junke Repaint pole, drill hole for drainage. Consider
redesigning/replacing plaque so all sculpture plaques are
consistent on West Temple.
Taylor, Cordell Order to Chaos Steel should be repainted/powder coated after
repair/replacement of corroded areas. Replace plaque.
Thomas, Darl Sky Sled Repaint support pole. Consider redesigning/replacing
plaque so all sculpture plaques are consistent on West
Temple.
Tooza Design / Beishline,
Rob & Shelley
Transformation Drill drainage hole in support pole.
Unknown Matterhorn Replica Clean and repaint the back of the sculpture to cover
peeling paint.
Unknown Herman Franks Clean area at sculpture/base. Consider having a bat
fabricated and installed to replace the missing one.
Unknown Irish Cross Corrosion is occurring; repair and repaint the sculpture.
Unknown Olmec Head Replica Repair broken chips on nose / lip area. Clean and repaint
the head once repairs are complete.
Unknown Japanese Lanterns The pillars that show signs of flaking concrete should be
addressed to avoid further deterioration. Check the water
spray direction of the sprinkler heads. Repair the concrete
on the pillars.
PRIORITY 3: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Caravaglia, Angelo Flight Clean sculpture, replace plaque.
Christensen, Day Story Wall Clean / wax. Re-affix two panels.
Christensen, Day Dairy Cats Clean paint from turquoise cat.
Christensen, Day Trees (Ash)Cleaning and waxing would remove water spotting and
bring patina up in quality.
Christensen, Day Trees (Elm)Remove graffiti, clean and wax.
Christensen, Day & Sucec,
Bonnie
Untitled (Glass Walls)Clean glass.
Chubin, Wayne Friends of the Park (Washington
Park)
Clean and repaint the frame. Replace plaque.
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Sandstone & cast
bronze branch frame benches)
Clean and remove graffiti. Replace plaque.
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Curved sandstone
benches with bronze branch
elements)
Clean to remove surface soiling and graffiti. Replace
plaque.
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Low bronze benches)Clean, buff and wax. Replace plaque.
Gerhart, Dan Gambel's Quail Repair broken top knot. Clean the moderate water spotting
on both sculptures. Replace plaque.
Glassman, Stephen SK8I80 Clean / wax. Remove shoes and strip the paint on the
support pole.
Hess, John & Higbee,
Benjamin
Courage Under Fire Clean the staining from the base of the bench. Cleaning
the stainless and glass is also recommended.
Kaliser, Bruce Description of a Fault Repaint frame; buff plexiglas. Replace plaque.
Kougioumtzis, Pavlos Prometheus Fire Bearing Clean spray paint off; replace plaque.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks:
Children's Garden (Steel
Angles)
Clean to remove graffiti and hard water spots. Repair deep
gouge at base. Consult with structural engineer to
determine if drainage holes are recommended for this
installation.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Water
Feature
Could use surface cleaning to remove powdery orange
dirt/dust.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Stone
Markers
Hard water staining or surface soiling could be cleaned.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Rio
Plaza Benches
Installation would benefit from a thorough cleaning.
PRIORITY 3: Maintenance Recommendations [continued]
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Littig, William R. & Srok,
Nate
Lady and Dog Clean graffiti from sculpture.
Littig, William R. & Srok,
Nate
UTAH ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND
DINOSAURS
Remove paint from rocks and clean plaques.
Living Lenses - Wang, Po
Shu & Bertelsen, Louise
Wave Harmonics Clean, polish and wax. Replace plaque.
Lucas, Lark Untitled Remove glue from text panel. Silicone tiles to prevent
further chipping. Replace plaque.
Moonbird, Michael &
Lyons, Victoria
Sun, Moon & All Things In-
Between
Patch grout along bottom edge of mural.
Ragland, Greg Serve & Protect This was vandalized in May 2020. It was cleaned once but
needs additional cleaning to remove paint. Should also be
waxed. Replace plaque.
Smith, Dennis Peace Cradle (Peace Gardens)Clean and wax. One string is partially missing and does
not pose any structural issues. If cost to repair allows, it
could be replaced.
Strand, Mark River of Words Clean hard water deposit on tiles. Repair broken water
features.
Sucec, David Sidewalk Piece in Parts Clean, replace broken elements if possible. Replace
plaque if suitable location can be determined.
Thomas, Darl Faultline Clean and wax. Repaint the base. Replace plaque.
Varner, Kraig Children of Light Clean; remove wax from figure's teeth.
Volkommer, Mia Three Eyes Clean graffiti from sculpture.
PRIORITY 4: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Davis, Silvia Dream Dog (Warm Springs
Park)
DID NOT REVIEW. Removed from Warm Springs Park.
Currently stored at Parks Department until a new
installation site can be identified. Replace plaque when
reinstalled.
Goldsmith, Stephen Untitled (Pierpont walkway)Check water distribution spouts for blockages. Replace
plantings if that was an integral part of the artist's vision.
Replace plaque.
Johnston, Richard Fruited Plain II Stored in an RDA warehouse since 2011. If this will not be
reinstalled, consider deaccessioning from the collection. If
reinstalled, replace plaque.
Landmark Design,
Christensen, Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles, Katie;
Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks (Overall)Design plaques and/or signage throughout the project.
Littig, William R. & Flores-
Sahagun, Bernardo
Anagrams We recommend not removing or repairing the existing
artwork until Sugar House construction is completed.
Matsubayashi, Kazuo Asteroid Landed Softly Lights are all off, confirm reason with Gallivan. Replace
plaque.
Pace, John & Associates /
Shaw, John
Water Walk Repaint rims of light fixtures.
Simpson, Buster Presence If possible, divert sprinklers from concrete base to avoid
further discoloration.
Snow, V. Doug Untitled Monitor annually for adhesion issues.
Thomas, Ivana Oblonsky City Birds Consider redesigning/replacing plaque so all sculpture
plaques are consistent on West Temple.
Tylevich, Alexander Through the Safety Lens Chip found in glass. Monitor annually to check for further
(though unlikely) cracking. Replace plaque.
PRIORITY 4: Plaque Replacement Only
ARTIST TITLE
Blackner, Elizabeth & Boyd; Swain, John; Goldsmith,
Stephen
Seven Canyons Fountain
Davis, Silvia Dream Dog (Fairmont Park)
Davis, Silvia Jack
Delgado, Roberto L.Citywalk Site Design 30
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Irregular shaped bronze benches)
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary III
Gerhart, Dan Pythagoras (Medallions)
Gerhart, Dan Pythagoras (Sphere)
Hadlock, Neil An Urban Allegory
Johnston, Richard Arch
Johnston, Richard Untitled (Bird)
Juhlin, Jeff Children's Wall
Juhlin, Jeff Fireman
Juhlin, Jeff Fireman Cutout
Littig, William R. Untitled (Fire Station #4)
Littig, William R. & Heath, Paul Lantern
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Caliope)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Clio)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Erato)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Euterpe)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Melomene)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Polyhymnia)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Terpsichore)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Thalia)
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Urania)
Pursley, David Untitled
Ragland, Greg Expression
Ragland, Greg Happy-Go-Lucky
Riggs, Frank Untitled
Roper, Helen "Jo"Untitled
Taylor, Cordell Indiana Bridge
Tessman, Thomas Hearts
Tessman, Thomas Rococo-coco
Thomas, Darl Skeleton
Thomas, Darl Windwheel #9
Volkommer, Mia Pair of Eyes
PRIORITY 4: No Issues
ARTIST TITLE
Barley, Ethan Mandala Lantern
Barley, Ethan Torsion
Beatlebrox, Zafod Dare to Swim Upstream with Style
Bjorch, Randi A.Bauta Stone
Blackerby, Ric Tango
Budd, Spencer Whirl Wind
Christensen, Day High Water
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Hidden Hollow)
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Sprague Library)
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Sugar House Commons)
PRIORITY 4: No Issues
[continued]
ARTIST TITLE
Christensen, Day Trees (Sycamore)
Christensen, Day Wildlife Wall
Eriksen, Edvard The Little Mermaid
Fairbanks, Ortho Our Little Angel
Flack, McGarren Day Goes By
Forsyth, Gordon Great Salt Lake Mirage
Fraughton, Ed Parley Pratt
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary II
Hale, Girard Mrs. E.O. Howard
Hess, John Jigsaw
Johansen, Nathan & Johansen, Hannah Impact
Kass, Thomas Spirit Poles
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Cascade
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Cog
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Trough
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Dog park)
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Jordan River Trail)
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Pavillion)
Kwon, Soonju A Piece of Sky
Landmark Design, Christensen, Day; Sucec, Bonnie;
Coles, Katie; Matheson, Bri
500 West Park Blocks: Sandstone
Littig, William R.Untitled (4th Avenue Stairs)
Littig, William R.Untitled (Reservoir Park)
Littig, William R. & Flores-Sahagun, Bernardo Untitled (Sorenson Unity Center)
Littig, William R. & Srok, Nate Tortoise and Hair
Little, Tim Steamed Up
Malin, Millard Fillmore Sugarhouse Pioneer Monument
Matsubayashi, Kazuo Dancing Clowns
O'Very Covey, Traci Imagine
Robertson, Brook A Bee-autiful Hive
Schultz, James & Neofitos, Evangelos The Humble Bee
Smith, Dennis Peace Cradle (Gallivan Plaza)
Smith, Dennis The Doll and Dare
Stedham, Kathryn Highway, Byway; Blue Line; Roads & Rivers; Landing
Taylor, Brad & Buxton, Kerri Untitled (Pavers)
Tooza Design / Beishline, Rob & Shelley Urban Ear
Vienneau, Nick Bike Hive
Vienneau, Nick Chains
Wischer, Wendy Currents
Unknown Chinese Lions
Unknown Dolman Replica
Unknown Preaching Buddha
ARTIST TITLE PAGE #
Column1 Column2 Column3
Allen, Sam Untitled 1
Barley, Ethan Anthocyanin 2
Barley, Ethan Mandala Lantern 3
Barley, Ethan Torsion 4
Beatlebrox, Zafod Dare to Swim Upstream with Style 5
Bjorch, Randi A.Bauta Stone 6
Blackerby, Ric Tango 7
Blackner, Swain, Goldsmith Seven Canyons Fountain 8
Budd, Spencer Whirl Wind 9
Caravaglia, Angelo Flight 10
Christensen, Day Dairy Cats 11
Christensen, Day High Water 12
Christensen, Day Story Wall 13
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Hidden Hollow)14
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Sprague Library)15
Christensen, Day Sugarbeets (Sugar House Commons)16
Christensen, Day Trees (Ash)17
Christensen, Day Trees (Elm)18
Christensen, Day Trees (Maple)19
Christensen, Day Trees (Sycamore)20
Christensen, Day Wildlife Wall 21
Christensen, Day & Sucec, Bonnie Untitled (Glass Walls)22
Christmas, Holly Flight of Fancy 23
Chubin, Wayne Friends of the Park (Herman Franks Park)24
Chubin, Wayne Friends of the Park (Washington Park)25
Chubin, Wayne & Gallagher, Tim Signal Site 26
Davis, Silvia Answering the Call 27
Davis, Silvia Dream Dog (Fairmont Park)28
Davis, Silvia Dream Dog (Warm Springs Park)29
Davis, Silvia Jack 30
Davis, Silvia & Jacobs, Jim Crystal Grate 31
DeDecker, Jane Through the Shelter of Love 32
Delgado, Roberto L.Citywalk Site Design 30 33
Dolinger, Ed Untitled 34
Eddy, Dave Red Fans 35
Ellison, Robert Tweak 360 36
Eriksen, Edvard The Little Mermaid 37
Fairbanks, Avard T.The Dawn of a New Era: Peace 38
Fairbanks, Ortho Our Little Angel 39
Flack, McGarren Day Goes By 40
Forsyth, Gordon Great Salt Lake Mirage 41
Fraughton, Ed Parley Pratt 42
Fuhriman, Jerry & Taylor, Arthur Missy's Rocket 43
Furches, Clay Untitled (Tree Grates & Manhole Covers)44
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Curved sandstone benches )45
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Irregular shaped bronze benches)46
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Low bronze benches)47
Garten, Cliff Untitled (Sandstone & cast bronze benches)48
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary 49
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary II 50
Gerhart, Dan Bonneville Reliquary III 51
Gerhart, Dan Flying Fish 52
Gerhart, Dan Gambel's Quail 53
Gerhart, Dan Pythagoras (Medallions)54
Gerhart, Dan Pythagoras (Sphere)55
Glassman, Stephen SK8I80 56
Goldsmith, Stephen Untitled (Pierpont walkway)57
Hadlock, Neil An Urban Allegory 58
Hadlock, Neil Portal 59
Hale, Girard Mrs. E.O. Howard 60
Heath, Nowlin, Fischman, Geary Untitled at Bend in the River 61
Heath, Nowlin, Fischman, Geary Untitled, Labyrinth 62-63
Hess, John Eurhythmy 64
Hess, John Jigsaw 65
Hess, John & Higbee, Benjamin Courage Under Fire 66
Johansen, Nathan Box Elder Seed 67
Johansen, Nathan Last to Launch 68
Johansen, Nathan & Johansen, Hannah Impact 69
Johansen, Nathan & Johansen, Hannah Tumbleweeds 70
Johnston, Richard Arch 71
Johnston, Richard Fruited Plain II 72
Johnston, Richard Untitled (Bird)73
Jones, Ben & Stevens Jones, Carey Fire House Fire 74
Juhlin, Jeff Children's Wall 75
Juhlin, Jeff Fireman 76
Juhlin, Jeff Fireman Cutout 77
Kaliser, Bruce Description of a Fault 78
Kass, Thomas Spirit Poles 79
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Cascade 80
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Cog 81
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Spurt 82
Konopasek, Lenka McClelland Trail: Trough 83
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Dog park)84
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Jordan River Trail)85
Konopasek, Lenka Secret Dwellings (Pavilion)86
Kougioumtzis, Pavlos Prometheus Fire Bearing 87
Kwon, Soonju A Piece of Sky 88
Kwon, Soonju Flow 89
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks (Overall)90
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Children's Garden (silhouettes)91
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Children's Garden (steel angles)92
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Light Sculpture 93
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Rio Plaza with Benches 94
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Sandstone 95
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Stone Markers 96
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks: Water Feature 97
Littig, William R.Lupita, the Woman 98
Littig, William R.Untitled (4th Avenue Stairs)99
Littig, William R. Untitled (Fire Station #4)100
Littig, William R.Untitled (Reservoir Park)101
Littig & Flores-Sahagun Anagrams 102-107
Littig & Flores-Sahagun Guardians 108
Littig & Flores-Sahagun Untitled (Sorenson Unity Center)109
Littig, William R. & Heath, Paul Lantern 110
Littig, William R. & Srok, Nate Lady and Dog 111
Littig, William R. & Srok, Nate Tortoise and Hair 112
Littig, William R. & Srok, Nate UTAH ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND DINOSAURS 113
Little, Tim Huey the Utah Cricket 114
Little, Tim Steamed Up 115
Living Lenses Wave Harmonics 116
Lucas, Lark Untitled 117
Malin, Millard Fillmore Sugarhouse Pioneer Monument 118
Matsubayashi, Kazuo Asteroid Landed Softly 119
Matsubayashi, Kazuo Dancing Clowns 120
McBeth, James Utah Sandscape 121
Moonbird, Michael & Lyons, Victoria Sun, Moon & All Things In-Between 122
Nebeker, Kinde Untitled 123
O'Very Covey, Traci Drinking It In 124
O'Very Covey, Traci Imagine 125
Pace, John & Associates / Shaw, John Water Walk 126
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Caliope)127
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Clio)128
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Erato)129
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Euterpe)130
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Melomene)131
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Polyhymnia)132
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Terpsichore)133
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Thalia)134
Pillow, Troy Nine Muses (Urania)135
Pursley, David Untitled 136
Ragland, Greg Expression 137
Ragland, Greg Happy-Go-Lucky 138
Ragland, Greg No Salt Just Pepper; Three Peas in a Pod; Starters 139
Ragland, Greg Serve & Protect 140
Riddle, John & Heath, Paul 200 West Planters 141
Riggs, Frank Untitled 142
Robertson, Brook A Bee-autiful Hive 143
Robertson, Brook On Broadway 144
Roper, Helen "Jo"Untitled 145
Schultz, James & Neofitos, Evangelos The Humble Bee 146
Simpson, Buster Presence 147
Smith, Dennis Peace Cradle (Gallivan Plaza)148
Smith, Dennis Peace Cradle (Peace Gardens)149
Smith, Dennis Stargazer 150
Smith, Dennis The Doll and Dare 151
Snow, V. Doug Untitled 152
Soelberg, Douglas Deadly Virtues 153
Stedham, Kathryn Highway, Byway; Blue Line; Roads & Rivers; Landing 154
Strand, Mark River of Words 155
Sucec, David Sidewalk Piece in Parts 156
Swain, John Untitled 157
Taylor, Brad & Buxton, Kerri Untitled (Pavers)158
Taylor, Cordell Indiana Bridge 159
Taylor, Cordell Order to Chaos 160
Taylor, Cordell Space Junke 161
Tessman, Thomas Hearts 162
Tessman, Thomas Pierpont Benches 163
Tessman, Thomas Rococo-coco 164
Thelander, Eric Sugar House Benches 165
Thomas, Darl Faultline 166
Thomas, Darl Skeleton 167
Thomas, Darl Sky Sled 168
Thomas, Darl Windwheel #9 169
Thomas, Ivana Oblonsky City Birds 170
Tooza Design / Beishline, Rob & Shelley Transformation 171
Tooza Design / Beishline, Rob & Shelley Urban Ear 172
Tylevich, Alexander Through the Safety Lens 173
Varner, Kraig Children of Light 174
Vienneau, Nick Bike Hive 175
Vienneau, Nick Chains 176
Volkommer, Mia Pair of Eyes 177
Volkommer, Mia Three Eyes 178
Wischer, Wendy Currents 179
Unknown Chinese Lions 180
Unknown Dolman Replica 181
Unknown Herman Franks 182
Unknown Irish Cross 183
Unknown Japanese Lanterns 184-185
Unknown Matterhorn Replica 186
Unknown Olmec Head Replica 187
Unknown Preaching Buddha 188
0000001
061075 1 Juhlin, Jeff 1991 Fireman Cutout Corten Steel Fire Station #7, 1000
West 300 North Fire Stations $6,500.00
061129 1 1997 Signal Site Fabricated
metal
Westpointe Park, 1100
North 2000 West Parks $14,850.00
1 2016
UTAH ANIMALS,
BIRDS, AND
DINOSAURS
Steel
Redwood Meadows
Park, 1768 West 400
North, Salt Lake City,
UT 84104
Parks $32,000.00
1 Ragland, Greg 2014 Happy-Go-Lucky Parks $33,385.00
2 2013 Courage Under
Fire
Stainless
steel, glass,
concrete
Fire Stations $55,000.00
0000002
061147 2 Gerhart, Dan 2003
Pioneer Precinct
Building, 1040 West 700
South - Interior, 3 wall
reliefs on North Wall, 1
piece on south wall -
Exterior, west side of
building along Jordan
River Pkwy
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
Interior-4 wall reliefs, cast bronze
and wood veneer - Exterior-1 Cast
bronze sphere atop a polished
stainless steel pole
$75,000.00
2
Moonbird,
Michael & Lyons,
Victoria
2014
Glendale Branch
Library, 1440 West
Concord Avenue
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $100,000.00
2 Ragland, Greg 2010,
2017
No Salt Just
Pepper, Three
Peas in a Pod,
Starters
9-Line Community
Garden, 900 South 700
West
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
No - in
storage at
Metal Arts
Foundry
$50,000.00
061131 2 Riggs, Frank 1978 Untitled Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $5,000.00
061159 2 Ellison, Robert 2005 Tweak 360 Jordan Skate Park,
1060 South 900 West Parks
$22,500 from the CIP general
fund cost center, $22500 from
CBDG
$45,000.00
061099 2 Eriksen, Edvard 1955 Parks $25,000.00
0000003
061136 2 2002 Concrete, tile Parks
labyrinth concrete pavers and
ceramic tile mosaic benches.
ceramic and concrete bench and
pavers
$100,000.00
2 Konopasek,
Lenka 2014 Secret Dwellings, Cottonwood Park, 1540
West 300 North Parks 3 sculptures, one artwork $98,952.00
061196 2 2008 Sports Facilities set of 4 sculptures suggesting
origami butterfly $40,000.00
061098 2 Bjorch, Randi A.1972 Parks
Per 1972 Asset Sheet "Gift from
sons of Norway - Leif Erikson
Lodge"
061100 2 Fairbanks, Avard
T.1976 The Dawn of a
New Era: Peace
Concrete
and terrazzo Parks Per 1976 asset sheet "Salt Lake
Council of Women" gift
0000004
061102 2 Smith, Dennis Parks $18,000.00
2 Stedham,
Kathryn
Glendale Branch
Library, 1400 South
Concord Avenue
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
Are there 4 or 5 paintings?
Sources conflict $60,000.00
2 Taylor, Cordell 800 South 1000 West Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $10,500.00
061103 2 Unknown Parks Two total
061104 2 Unknown Dolman Replica Parks
061105 2 Unknown Parks
0000005
061106 2 Unknown Parks Three total
061107 2 Unknown Parks
061108 2 Unknown Parks
061109 2 Unknown 1965 Parks
061096 1 Thomas, Darl 1987 Fire Station #9, 350
Amelia Earhart Drive Fire Stations stainless steel kinetic sculpture $7,500.00
3 2009 Flying Object Series 2.0, Purchased for
permanent collection by RDA $4,500.00
0000006
061113 3 Matsubayashi,
Kazuo 1994
North Temple median,
between 200 and 300
West
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces 10 painted steel rods $9,600.00
3 Christensen,
Day 2012 Popperton Park, 1350
East 11th Avenue Parks 14 stainless steel poles $50,000.00
061093 3 Davis, Silvia
Warm Springs Park, 840
North 500 West, south
of Wasatch Springs
Bldg.
Parks cast bronze reclining dog
sculpture $3,488.00
061085 3 Littig, William R.Guadalupe Park, 619
West 500 North Parks $2,000.00
061094 3 Nebeker, Kinde 1999 Untitled
Warm Springs Park, 840
North 500 West-2014- 7
stolen, 7 removed and
are in storage at Metal
Arts Foundry
Parks series of 14 cast bronze plaques
inset in pillars $10,000.00
3 No Photo yet - still looking Littig, William R.4th Avenue stairs, east
of City Creek Canyon
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
0000007
061073 4 Davis, Silvia 1994 Answering the
Call
Fire Station #1, 500
East 200 South Fire Stations $15,000.00
4 Barley, Ethan 2017 Mandala Lantern 250 West 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 Beatlebrox,
Zafod 2017 150 East 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 Blackerby, Ric 2017 200 East 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 Budd, Spencer 2017 350 West 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 2006 Flying Fish Flying Object Series 1.0, Purchased for
permanent collection by RDA $4,500.00
0000008
4 2014 Flying Object Created for Series 4.0, Purchased
for permanent collection using CIP $7,500.00
4 2006 Red Fans Flying Object
Titled "Untitled" on the website,
series 2.0, Purchased for
permanent collection by RDA
$4,500.00
4 Hess, John 2017 Jigsaw 250 West 300 South Flying Object $12,500.00
4 2017 Impact 250 East 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 2017 250 East 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 Kwon, Soonju 2017 Flow 130 West 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
0000009
4 Kwon, Soonju 2017 A Piece of Sky 50 West 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 Little, Tim 2017 150 East 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 2014 Box Elder Seed Flying Object Created for Series 4.0, Purchased
for permanent collection using CIP $7,500.00
4 2009 Last to Launch Flying Object Series 2.0, Purchased for
permanent collection by RDA $4,500.00
4 O'Very Covey,
Traci 2017 300 East 300 South Flying Object Alternately titled Drink it up not
sure which is right $12,500.00
4 Ragland, Greg 2017 130 West 300 South Flying Object
Flying object 5.0, no invoice in
Common for this particular flying
object
$12,500.00
00000010
4 Robertson,
Brook 2017 350 West 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 Robertson,
Brook 2017 On Broadway 150 West 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4
Schultz, James
& Neofitos,
Evangelos
2017 250 West 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 Smith, Dennis 2017 350 West 300 South Flying Object
Flying object 5.0, no invoice in
Common for this particular flying
object
$12,500.00
4 2017 Transformation 50 West 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
4 2017 Urban Ear 400 West 300 South Flying Object Flying object 5.0 $12,500.00
00000011
4 2009 Flight of Fancy City Storage Flying Object
Series 2.0, Purchased for
permanent collection by RDA,
located in City Stroage as of
3/2020 - we'd still like it assessed
so please coordinate with Kat to
have the storage opened up!
$4,500.00
4 2009 Missy's Rocket Flying Object Series 2.0, Purchased for
permanent collection by RDA $4,500.00
4 2009 Flying Object Series 2.0, Purchased for
permanent collection by RDA $4,500.00
4 2014 Flying Object Created for Series 4.0, Purchased
for permanent collection using CIP $7,500.00
4 Christensen,
Day 1994 Gallivan Center $14,823.00
4 Christensen,
Day 1994 Wildlife Wall Gallivan Center $35,000.00
00000012
4 1994 Crystal Grate Bronze Gallivan Center eight bronze tree grates ($1,625
ea.)$13,000.00
4 DeDecker, Jane 1994 Through the
Shelter of Love Cast Bronze Gallivan Center
4 Hadlock, Neil 1994 Gallivan Center 2 granite & concrete sculptures
4 No image Johnston,
Richard 1994 2011 removed during
renovation - in storage Gallivan Center $1,900.00
4 Matsubayashi,
Kazuo 1994 Asteroid Landed
Softly
Steel,
copper,
sandstone
Gallivan Center $179,000.00
4 McBeth, James 1994 Gallivan Center
RDA lists the title as "Bridge Wall"
- colored concrete on Pedestrian
bridge wall
00000013
4 1994 Gallivan Center
4 Smith, Dennis 1994 Gallivan Center $18,000.00
4 Strand, Mark 1994 Untitled Granite Gallivan Center poem engraved in granite
4 Caravaglia,
Angelo 1967 Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces abstract sculpture $30,000.00
061140 4 Delgado,
Roberto L.2001 Citywalk Site
Design 30
Corner of 200 South and
Main in front of One
Utah Center
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $126,000.00
061182 4 Flack, McGarren 2004 Day Goes By ?Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $1,100.00
00000014
061141 4 Furches, Clay 2001
Main Street, between
South Temple and 400
South
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
iron tree grates and manhole
covers $300,000.00
061148 4 Johnston,
Richard 1990
Median strip on 100
South between State
and Main
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $5,000.00
4 2013 Wave Harmonics Public Safety Building,
375 East 400 South
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $250,000.00
4 Ragland, Greg 2013 Public Safety Building,
375 East 400 South
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $140,000.00
4 Riddle, John &
Heath, Paul 2015 200 West
Planters
200 West between
North Temple & 700
South
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces 28 total ($1,179 ea.)$33,000.00
4 No Image, not online Roper, Helen
"Jo"1964 Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
abstract high-relief sculptured
wall, 10' x 65'$120,000.00
00000015
4 Simpson, Buster 2013 Public Safety Building,
375 East 400 South
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $355,000.00
4 Snow, V. Doug 1964 Untitled Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces 27' x 14' $125,000.00
061132 4 Soelberg,
Douglas 2002 Deadly Virtues Justice Courts Building,
330 South 200 East
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $40,000.00
061151 4 Sucec, David 1990 Sidewalk Piece in
Parts Marble
West side of State
Street between 300 and
400 South, and on 400
South at about 50 East
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces 15 marble sidewalk pavers $5,000.00
061133 4 Taylor, Cordell 2003 Median island at 375
South 400 West
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $50,000.00
4 Tylevich,
Alexander 2013 Public Safety Building,
375 East 400 South
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $120,000.00
00000016
061127 4 Allen, Sam 1979
Artesian Well Park 500
East 800 South, SW
corner
Parks $1,000.00
061092 4 Dolinger, Ed Richmond Park, 450
East 600 South, Gazebo Parks $7,500.00
061077 4 Kaliser, Bruce 1983 Description of a
Fault
Faultline Gardens, 1050
East 400 South Parks $400.00
061081 4 Littig, William R.1989 Parks $1,000.00
061137 4 Swain, John 1979 Untitled painted steel
and concrete
Taufer Park, 700 South
300 East Parks
061082 4 Tessman,
Thomas 1989 Reservoir Park 54 Finch
Lane, roof of Art Barn Parks $1,500.00
00000017
4 Thomas, Darl 1983
Faultline Gardens, 1050
East 400 South,
Northside
Parks $3,000.00
4 1999 Jack bronze Public Safety
Building $8,000.00
061130 4 Hadlock, Neil 1992 An Urban
Allegory
Cast
Stainless
Steel
Sports Facilities cast stainless steel, 3 pieces $75,000.00
4 Barley, Ethan 2014 Anthocyanin 147 East Broadway The Bike Stops Here The Bike Stops Here - is this still
installed?$6,000.00
4 Barley, Ethan 2014 Torsion 526 East Broadway The Bike Stops Here The Bike Stops Here - is this still
installed?$6,000.00
4 2014 Lady and Dog ?300 East Broadway The Bike Stops Here The Bike Stops Here $6,000.00
00000018
4 2014 Tortoise and Hair ?35 East Broadway The Bike Stops Here The Bike Stops Here $6,000.00
4 Vienneau, Nick 2014 Bike Hive ?469 East Braodway The Bike Stops Here The Bike Stops Here $6,000.00
4 Vienneau, Nick 2014 Chains ?267 East Broadway The Bike Stops Here The Bike Stops Here $6,000.00
4 Volkommer, Mia 2014 Pair of Eyes ?30 East Broadway The Bike Stops Here The Bike Stops Here $6,000.00
4 Volkommer, Mia 2014 111 East Broadway The Bike Stops Here The Bike Stops Here $6,000.00
061142 4 Garten, Cliff 2001 Untitled bronze,
stone, wood
NW corner of 200 South
Main, 250 South Main
(east side), 249 South
Main (West Side), SW
corner of 100 South
Main
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
13 Benches (confirm exact
number), 1 project $160,000.00
00000019
061143 4 Goldsmith,
Stephen Untitled
bronze,
stone,
concrete,
wood, flora,
wrought iron
Pierpont Walkway, 200
South & Pierpont
Avenue
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces Does this still exist??
4 O'Very Covey,
Traci 2016 Imagine Vinyl Mural
Eccles Theater Loading
Dock Door, 131 S Main
Street
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $3,000.00
061080 4 2002 Untitled
stamped
concrete
pavers
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
stamped concrete pavers with
vines and leaves $350.00
061152 4 Tessman,
Thomas Hearts
Pierpont Walkway, 200
South & Pierpont
Avenue
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
061153 4 Tessman,
Thomas Pierpont Benches sandstone
Pierpont Walkway, 200
South & Pierpont
Avenue
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
061095 5 Pursley, David Untitled Photography Fire Stations 7 hand-colored photographs $1,000.00
00000020
061150 5 No Image Hess, John 1977 Eurhythmy fiber wall
piece
Utah Aids Foundation,
1408 South 1100 East
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $1,620.00
5 Konapasek,
Lenka 2017 Steel Along the McClelland
Trail
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
4 sculptures, one artwork - each
approx 6 feet tall $60,000.00
5 Wischer, Wendy 2016 Currents
450 West 1300 South
beneath the I-15 1300
South underpass
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
Plauqe say "Funded entirely by
the engineering department"$90,000.00
5
Blackner,
Elizabeth &
Boyd, John
Swain, Stephen
Goldsmith
1993 Seven Canyons
Fountain
concrete,
stone and
landscaping
water feature
Liberty Park, 922 South
700 East, Center
walkway
Parks
City donated $275,000 per a
Letter in the common. The
collection sheet says city made a .
5 match.
$500,000.00
061086 5 Chubin, Wayne 1993 Friends of the
Park
photographic
plaque,
enamel on
metal
Herman Franks Park,
700 East 1300 South,
mounted on storage
bldg.
Parks $1,258.00
061111 5 Johnston,
Richard Untitled stainless
steel
Liberty Park, 922 South
700 East, North of Tracy
Aviary entrance
Parks
00000021
Concrete
ceramic tile
mural
cast bronze
Bronze
Neon
00000022
etched glass
over
equipment
bay
Stainless
steel
Cast bronze
Fabricated
metal.
Concrete
061110 6
Christensen,
Day & Bonnie
Sucec
2001
Salt Lake Sports
Complex, 645 South
Guardsman Way
Sports Facilities
Untitled sometimes alternatively
titled Color Wall - Series of 3 glass
walls
$65,000.00
00000023
061097 7 Juhlin, Jeff 1994 Fireman Corten steel Fire Station #13, 2360
Parleys Way Fire Stations $9,000.00
061139 7 Christensen,
Day 2003 Sugarbeets Cast bronze
Sprague Library: 2131
South 1100 East, Sugar
House Commons: Apx.
1165 East 2150 South,
Hidden Hollow: apx.
2175 East 2150 South
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces 4 cast bronze beets $35,000.00
061155 7 Fraughton, Ed Parley Pratt cast bronze Traffic triangle at 2300
East 2100 South
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $50,000.00
061191 7 Gerhart, Dan 2005 Bonneville
Reliquary Cast Bronze 2100 South 1050 East Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $40,000.00
7 Gerhart, Dan 2009 Bonneville
Reliquary II Cast Bronze 2100 South 1300 East Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $30,000.00
7 Gerhart, Dan 2014 Bonneville
Reliquary III Cast bronze 2100 South 1100 East
(Monument Plaza)
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces $45,000.00
00000024
061144 7
Littig, William R.
& Bernardo
Flores-Sahagun
2004 Anagrams throughout Sugarhouse
Business District
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces May be uninstalled - confirm?$43,500.00
061194 7 Thelander, Eric 2008 Sugar House
Benches
Cast
concrete
3 at corners of 2100
South and 1100 East, 1
at Fairmont Aquatic
Center, 1 at Sprague
Library and 1 at 2005
South 1100 East. (3
benches Barnes Noble,
2 in front of Wells Fargo
removed for recast in
November 2009)
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
set of 6 benches in Sugar House
Business District $40,000.00
061078 7 Chubin, Wayne 1993 Friends of the
Park
photographic
plaque,
enamel on
metal
Washington Park,
Parleys Canyon Parks $1,258.00
061084 7 Davis, Silvia Dream Dog cast bronze
cast bronze
reclining dog
sculpture
Fairmont Park, 900 East
2361 South Parks $3,488.00
061160 7 Glassman,
Stephen 2006 SK8I80
galvanized
steel and
Plexiglas
Fairmont Skate Park Parks $45,000.00
7
Littig, William
and Flores-
Sahagun,
Bernardo
1991 Guardians Corten steel
Elizabeth Sherman
Park, 2400 South
Highland Dr.
Parks $1,000.00
00000025
061097 7 Malin, Millard
Fillmore 1930
Sugarhouse
Pioneer
Monument
bronze and
sandstone
traffic island, 2100
South 1100 East
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
061117 4 & 5 Pillow, Troy 2007 Nine Muses
Stainless
steel, powder
coating
900 South and 900 East
attached to pedestals in
planters on corners
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
series of nine sculptures, stainless
steel with some powder coating,
enameling, kinetic parts
$45,000.00
5 & 6 Christensen,
Day 2011 Trees Cast bronze
approx. 1500 East 1300
South, 1560 East 1300
South, 2 - 1700 East
1300 South
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces 4 benches $65,000.00
061149 Kougioumtzis,
Pavlos 2002 Prometheus Fire
Bearing Bronze Jordan River Parkway,
1145 West 500 South
Misc. Public
Buildings & Spaces
Gift from Greek Ministry of Culture
and Greek National Bank $40,000.00
oil on canvas Memorial House More info on this piece?
[4]
[Landmark]
Design,
Christensen,
Day; Sucec,
Bonnie; Coles,
Katie; Matheson,
Bri
2007 500 West Park
Blocks
Stone, Steel,
Light,
Pavers,
Landscape,
Water
Feature
500 West Block
between North Temple
and 200 South
STONE MARKERS Stone
markers along the walkway
inscribed with poetry by Katie
Coles. Research and subject
matter by Bri Matheson. WATER
FEATURE Poetry by Katie Coles,
inscribed in stone around water
feature. Railroad track paving
pattern by Day Christensen and
Bonnie Sucec. CHILDREN’S
GARDEN Broken Stones, Spiral
Pathway, and Raised Sculpted
Silhouettes. Layout and design by
Day Christensen, Bonnie Sucec
and Landmark Design. LIGHT
SCULPTURES Layout and design
by Landmark Design, Bri
Matheson and Kit Farley of Key
Engineering. RIO GRANDE
DEPOT MID-STREET
PLAZA Poetry by Katie Coles,
inscribed in stone benches.
00000026
[4]
DOCUMENT ORGANIZATIONPREPARED BY
PROJECT OVERVIEW
PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA
PRIORITY RANKING LIST
CONDITION REPORTS
INDEX
Roni Thomas and Emily Stauff er
November 6, 2020
Dodworth & Stauff er Art Appraisal
and Consulting
dodworthart.com | 801.582.2787
Document 2 of 2
Contract Number 13-1-20-2412
Executed 6/10/2020
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Dodworth & Stauff er Art Appraisal and Consulting was contracted by Salt Lake City’s Public
Art Program Manager to perform assessment and condition reporting for 150 public artworks
that are located in City-owned parks, streets, plazas, and buildings and 92 artworks that are
located at the City & County Building. This document addresses the 92 items located at the
City & County Building.
The Condition Reports are organized into three categories:
[1] All commissioned mayor portraits located on the third fl oor
[2] All other artwork located within the building
[3] Sculpture on rooftop and on the grounds of Washington Square Park
We did not locate two items on the Maintenance Assessment spreadsheet provided by the
Public Art Program Manager. The fi rst is a large piece by Peter Max. This was located at the
Salt Lake City International Airport in 2019 when we reviewed that collection. The second
missing item is an untitled photograph by Tim Schneider/Schulder.
Because the Gordon Forsyth’s Great Salt Lake Mirage is not located at the City & County
Building, but in District Four at the Salt Lake City Arts Council offi ces, we included that in the
Public Art Assessment document.
PRIORITY RANKING CRITERIA
The subject properties were inspected by Emily Stauff er and Roni Thomas between July 2
and October 10, 2020. Each item was inspected and evaluated for issues associated with its
structure, surface, installation and/or base and surroundings.
Condition issues were documented in written condition reports including photographs, where
applicable. Each artwork was assigned a Priority Code Ranking from 1 to 4 with notes on
each item’s installation and condition with recommended actions for maintenance and repair.
We also compiled a list of artwork with plaques that are missing or damaged and should be
replaced.
The criteria for each of the priority codes are as follows:
[1] Immediate action: structural issues, visually unsightly
[2] Moderate action: peeling paint, early corrosion, etc.
[3] Cleaning / waxing
[4] Condition acceptable
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Richards, Lee Greene Untitled Painting should be treated by a restoration professional to
repair surface cracking and stabilize area with lifting. Because
painting could be actively deteriorating, use extra caution
when moving, wrapping and transporting the artwork. Replace
plaque.
Max, Peter Untitled COULD NOT LOCATE. This piece was not found in our
examination at the City & County Building. We saw it at the
Salt Lake Airport in 2019. This should be deaccessioned if it
has been permanently transferred to the Airport Collection.
Schneider, Tim (Schulder?) Untitled COULD NOT LOCATE. This should be deaccessioned from
the collection.
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Houser, Alan May We Have Peace Repair and repaint base. Replace plaque.
Krille, Jean Untitled Painting should be re-framed to mitigate warping. Remove
accretion. Replace plaque.
Krille, Jean Untitled Painting should be re-framed to mitigate warping. Clean
painting. Replace plaque.
Prokopenko, Valentina Untitled Minor restoration is recommended to repair loss at lower right;
tighten corner of frame. Replace plaque.
Prokopenko, Valentina Untitled Minor restoration is recommended to repair loss; professional
surface cleaning; replace or repair the frame. Replace plaque.
Unknown artist Untitled (Miracle of the Seagulls)If the material in the paint can be identified, scuffs and
scratches could be retouched. To prevent further damage,
relocate or create barrier to protect from accidental contact
from furniture or people. Replace plaque.
PRIORITY 1: Maintenance Recommendations
PRIORITY 2: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Frankoski, Jim Flower Broom Clean glass/glazing with appropriate solution that won't create
haze or streaks. Replace plaque.
Frankoski, Jim Gerbera Clean glass/glazing with appropriate solution that won't create
haze or streaks. Replace plaque.
Frankoski, Jim Still Life with Asters Clean glass/glazing with appropriate solution that won't create
haze or streaks. Replace plaque.
Frankoski, Jim Still Life with Toucan Clean glass/glazing with appropriate solution that won't create
haze or streaks. Replace plaque.
Stanford, John Untitled Hang in location that does not get direct sunlight to prevent
further deterioration. Replace plaque.
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Clawson, John Francis Armstrong, 7th Mayor
1886-1890
Damage on frame could be repaired, but this is not a high
priority.
Clawson, John George Scott, 8th Mayor 1890-
1892
Observed condition issues are minor, but the tear should be
repaired at some point. The issue above the figure's shoe
appears to e remnants of a previous repari. The cause of
discoloration on frame at lower right is unknown, but could
likely be refinished.
Clawson, John R. N. Baskin, 9th Mayor 1892-
1895
Finish on frame could be repaired, but this is not a high
priority.
Clawson, John Samuel C. Park, 16th Mayor 1912-
1916
The plaque might have a typo, engraved as "Samual".
Confirm correct spelling and update records or have new
plaque engraved and affixed to frame.
Clawson, John William Jennings, 5th Mayor 1882-
84
The very minor areas of loss along bottom edge could be
repaired, but this is not a high priority.
Davis, Sylvia Untitled No maintenance needed at time of inspection. Monitor for
active cracking in left foreleg.
Gittins, Alvin E. J. Garn, 28th Mayor 1972-1975 Low priority to have fabric re-affixed to the liner of the frame.
Haddock, Brent Air, Fire, Water The mat and backing material should be replaced with
archival material, but this is not a high priority. Replace
plaque.
Jin, K.Untitled Image is faded and framed with non-archival material. Due to
low-value and low-importance of this item, no action
recommended. Perhaps deaccession. Replace plaque.
Murray, Richard Untitled No maintenance needed at time of inspection. Frame could
be touched-up but not a high priority. Replace plaque.
PRIORITY 3: Maintenance Recommendations
PRIORITY 4: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Ottinger, George Martin Untitled No maintenance needed at time of inspection. Frame could
be repaired and painting adjusted in the frame to cover flaws
at left margin. Replace plaque.
Nichol, Erskine Steady, Johnnie - Steady The mat appears to be non-archival material, but added detail
is appropriate to age and style of the print. Replace plaque.
Parkhill, Sue Untitled Due to relatively low-value of this item, no action is
recommended. Consider deaccessioning from collection.
Replace plaque.
Perry, E. Wood Brigham Young No maintenance needed at time of inspection. Frame could
be repaired and painting adjusted in the frame to cover flaws
at left margin.
Pratt, Lorus Feramorz Little, 4th Mayor 1876-
1882
Minor scuff at upper right could be addressed at some point,
but it is not unsightly and appears stable.
Redeker, Peter Landschaft IIIc Image is faded. Due to low-value and low-importance of this
item, no action recommended. Consider deaccessioning.
Replace plaque.
Redeker, Peter Landschaft IIIcl Image is faded. Due to low-value and low-importance of this
item, no action recommended. Consider deaccessioning.
Replace plaque.
Richards, Lee Greene David Abbott Jenkins, 24th Mayor
1940-1944
No maintenance needed at time of inspection. The minor
issue at could be touched up, but not an immediate priority.
Roch, Jules Sunset The mat and backing material should be replaced with
archival material, but this is not a high priority. Replace
plaque.
Schneider, Tim (Schulder?)Untitled Image is faded and framed with non-archival material. Due to
low-value and low-importance of this item, no action
recommended. Perhaps deaccession. Replace plaque.
Schneider, Tim (Schulder?)Untitled Image is faded and framed with non-archival material. Due to
low-value and low-importance of this item, no action
recommended. Perhaps deaccession. Replace plaque.
Schneider, Tim (Schulder?)Untitled Image is faded and framed with non-archival material. Due to
low-value and low-importance of this item, no action
recommended. Perhaps deaccession.
Shipler, J. W. Delegates to Constitutional
Convention, SLC March 2 1895
Framed with non-archival material which could cause
discoloration over time; should be replaced with archival mat
and backing, but not a high priority. Replace plaque.
Taggert, George Henry Ezra Thompson, 12th and 14th
Mayor 1900-1903 & 1906-1907
No maintenance needed at time of inspection. The frame
should be repaired, but this is not a top priority.
PRIORITY 4: Maintenance Recommendations [continued]
ARTIST TITLE
Baxter, Ken Untitled
Davis, Linda Untitled
Fairbanks, Avard Untitled
Hsieh, Richard Untitled
Karlsbader Untitled
Knaphus, Torleif School Children's Monument
Lee, Lester Untitled
Malin, Elva Untitled
Manzano, C. R. City and County Building
Manzano, C. R. Saltair I
Manzano, C. R. Saltair I 1893-1925
Manzano, C. R. Saltair II
Manzano, C. R. Saltair II 1926-1971
Morrison, Brooke Nine in a Line
Morrison, Brooke Peacock Orchids
Murray, Richard Untitled
Stuart, Gilbert (after)Untitled
Sucec and Christensen Untitled
Sucec and Christensen Untitled
Wagner, Randi Untitled
Wagrez, Jacques Gypsy Fortune Teller
Ward Engineers Liberty Park Plan
Wilson, James Salt Air Summer, 1893
Wilson, Kathryn Untitled
Wilson, Kathryn Untitled
ARTIST TITLE
Best, LaVonne Vincent Louis Marcus, 21st Mayor 1932-1936
Caravaglia, Angelo Commerce
Caravaglia, Angelo Justice
Caravaglia, Angelo Liberty
Clawson, John James Sharp, 6th Mayor 1884-1886
Clawson, John John Clark, 11th Mayor 1898-1899
Clawson, John John F. Bowman, 20th Mayor 1928-1931
Clawson, John John S. Bransford, 15th Mayor 1908-1911
Clawson, John William Montague Ferry, 17th Mayor 1916-1919
Cogswell, William Daniel H. Wells, 3rd Mayor 1866-1876
Gittins, Alvin Adiel F. Stewart, 26th Mayor 1956-1960
Gittins, Alvin Conrad B. Harrison, 29th Mayor 1974-1976
Hafen, John James Glendinning, 10th Mayor 1896-1897
Hein, Jeffrey Ralph Becker, 34th Mayor 2008-2016
Lake, Randall Palmer DePaulis, 31st Mayor 1985-1992
Lake, Randall Ted Wilson, 30th Mayor 1976-1985
Newby, Gordon Lewis Commerce
Perova, Galina Deedee Corradini, 32nd Mayor 1992-2000
Perova, Galina Ross C. Anderson, 33rd Mayor 2000-2008
Perry, E. Wood Abraham O. Smoot, 2nd Mayor, 1857-66
Perry, E. Wood Jedediah M. Grant, 1st Mayor 1851-1856
PRIORITY 4: Plaque Replacement Only
PRIORITY 4: No Issues
Richards, Lee Greene Charles Clarence Neslen, 19th Mayor 1920-1928
Richards, Lee Greene Earl J. Glade, 25th Mayor 1944-1956
Richards, Lee Greene John M. Wallace, 23rd Mayor 1938-1940
Richards, Lee Greene Richard P. Morris, 13th Mayor 1904-1905
Thorpe, Everett Clark J. Bracken Lee, 27th Mayor 1960-1972
Warnock, David Untitled
Young, Richard Columbia
Unknown Manufacturer Gettysburg Address
Unknown Manufacturer Untitled (North fountain)
Robinson Iron Untitled (South fountain)
Louis Marcus, 21st Mayor, 1932-36
Page 1
R. N. Baskin, 9th Mayor 1892-1895
Page 2
Francis Armstrong, 7th Mayor 1886-90
Page 3
John Clark, 11th Mayor 1898-1900
Page 4
William Jennings, 5th Mayor 1882-84
Page 5
James Sharp, 6th Mayor 1884-86
Page 6
John S. Bransford, 15th Mayor 1908-1911
Page 7
George Scott, 8th Mayor 1890-92
Page 8
Samuel C. Park, 16th Mayor 1912-16
Page 9
William Montague Ferry, 17th Mayor 1916-19
Page 10
John F. Bowman, 20th Mayor 1928-31
Page 11
Daniel H. Wells, 3rd Mayor 1866-76
Page 12
E. J. Garn, 28th Mayor 1972-75
Page 13
Adiel F. Stewart, 26th Mayor 1956-60
Page 14
Conrad B. Harrison, 29th Mayor 1974-76
Page 15
James Glendinning, 10th Mayor 1896-97
Page 16
Ralph Becker, 34th Mayor 2008-2016
Page 17
Palmer DePaulis, 31st Mayor 1985-92
Page 18
Ted Wilson, 30th Mayor 1976-85
Page 19
Deedee Corradini, 32nd Mayor 1992-2000
Page 20
Ross C. Anderson, 33rd Mayor 2000-08
Page 21
Jedediah M. Grant, 1st Mayor 1851-1856
Page 22
Abraham O. Smoot, 2nd Mayor, 1857-66
Page 23
Feramorz Little, 4th Mayor 1876-82
Page 24
Richard P. Morris, 13th Mayor 1904-05
Page 25
John M. Wallace, 23rd Mayor 1938-40
Page 26
Earl J. Glade, 25th Mayor 1944-56
Page 27
David Abbott Jenkins, 24th Mayor 1940-44
Page 28
Charles Clarence Neslen, 19th Mayor 1920-28
Page 29
Ezra Thompson, 12th and 14th Mayor 1900-03 and 1906-07
Page 30
J. Bracken Lee, 27th Mayor 1960-1972
Page 31
Untitled
Page 32
Untitled
Page 33
Untitled
Page 34
Untitled (Thomas Jefferson)
Page 35
Still Life with Toucan
Page 36
Still Life with Asters
Page 37
Gerbera
Page 38
Flower Broom
Page 39
Air, Fire, Water
Page 40
Untitled
Page 41
Untitled
Page 42
Untitled
Page 43
Untitled
Page 44
Untitled
Page 45
Untitled
Page 46
Untitled
Page 47
Saltair I 1893-1925
Page 48
Saltair II 1926-1971
Page 49
Saltair I 1893-1925
Page 50
Saltair II 1926-1971
Page 51
City and County Building
Page 52
Nine in a Line
Page 53
Peacock Orchids
Page 54
Untitled
Page 55
Untitled
Page 56
Steady, Johnnie - Steady
Page 57
Untitled
Page 58
Untitled
Page 59
Brigham Young
Page 60
Untitled
Page 61
Road to Karpaty
Page 62
Landschaft IIIcl
Page 63
Landschaft IIIc
Page 64
Untitled (view of Salt Lake valley)
Page 65
Sunset
Page 66
Untitled
Page 67
Untitled
Page 68
Untitled
Page 69
Delegates to Constitutional Convention
Page 70
Untitled
Page 71
Untitled
Page 72
Untitled
Page 73
Untitled
Page 74
Untitled
Page 75
Gypsy Fortune Teller
Page 76
Liberty Park Plan
Page 77
Untitled
Page 78
Salt Air Summer, 1893
Page 79
Untitled
Page 80
Untitled
Page 81
Untitled
Page 82
Untitled (Gettysburg Address)
Page 83
Justice
Page 84
Commerce
Page 85
Liberty
Page 86
Commerce
Page 87
Columbia
Page 88
South Fountain, Washington Park
Page 89
North Fountain, Washington Park
Page 90
School Children's Monument
Page 91
May We Have Peace
Page 92
CONDITION REPORT INDEX | CITY COUNTY BUILDING
ARTIST TITLE PAGE #
Column1 Column2 Column3
Best, LaVonne Vincent Louis Marcus, 21st Mayor 1932-1936 1
Baxter, Ken Untitled 32
Caravaglia, Angelo Commerce 85
Caravaglia, Angelo Justice 84
Caravaglia, Angelo Liberty 86
Clawson, John Francis Armstrong, 7th Mayor 1886-1890 3
Clawson, John George Scott, 8th Mayor 1890-1892 8
Clawson, John James Sharp, 6th Mayor 1884-1886 6
Clawson, John John Clark, 11th Mayor 1898-1899 4
Clawson, John John F. Bowman, 20th Mayor 1928-1931 11
Clawson, John John S. Bransford, 15th Mayor 1908-1911 7
Clawson, John R. N. Baskin, 9th Mayor 1892-1895 2
Clawson, John Samuel C. Park, 16th Mayor 1912-1916 9
Clawson, John William Jennings, 5th Mayor 1882-1884 5
Clawson, John William Montague Ferry, 17th Mayor 1916-1919 10
Cogswell, William Daniel H. Wells, 3rd Mayor 1866-76 12
Davis, Linda Untitled 33
Davis, Sylvia Untitled 34
Fairbanks, Avard Untitled 35
Frankoski, Jim Flower Broom 39
Frankoski, Jim Gerbera 38
Frankoski, Jim Still Life with Asters 37
Frankoski, Jim Still Life with Toucan 36
Gittins, Alvin Adiel F. Stewart, 26th Mayor 1956-60 14
Gittins, Alvin Conrad B. Harrison, 29th Mayor 1974-1976 15
Gittins, Alvin E. J. Garn, 28th Mayor 1972-1975 13
Haddock, Brent Air, Fire, Water 40
Hafen, John James Glendinning, 10th Mayor 1896-1897 16
Hein, Jeffrey Ralph Becker, 34th Mayor 2008-2016 17
Houser, Alan May We Have Peace 92
Hsieh, Richard Untitled 41
Jin, K.Untitled, 42
Karlsbader Untitled 43
Knaphus, Torleif School Children's Monument 91
Krille, Jean Untitled 44
Krille, Jean Untitled 45
Lake, Randall Palmer DePaulis, 31st Mayor 1985-1992 18
Dodworth Stauffer | 801.582.2787 | www.dodworthart.com
CONDITION REPORT INDEX | CITY COUNTY BUILDING
ARTIST TITLE PAGE #
Lake, Randall Ted Wilson, 30th Mayor 1976-1985 19
Lee, Lester Untitled 46
Malin, Elva Untitled 47
Manzano, C. R. City and County Building 52
Manzano, C. R. Saltair I 48
Manzano, C. R. Saltair I 1893-1925 50
Manzano, C. R. Saltair II 49
Manzano, C. R. Saltair II 1926-1971 51
Morrison, Brooke Nine in a Line 53
Morrison, Brooke Peacock Orchids 54
Murray, Richard Untitled 55
Murray, Richard Untitled 56
Newby, Gordon Lewis Commerce 87
Nichol, Erskine Steady, Johnnie - Steady 57
Ottinger, George Martin Untitled 58
Parkhill, Sue Untitled 59
Perova, Galina Deedee Corradini, 32nd Mayor 1992-2000 20
Perova, Galina Ross C. Anderson, 33rd Mayor 2000-2008 21
Perry, E. Wood Abraham O. Smoot, 2nd Mayor, 1857-1866 23
Perry, E. Wood Brigham Young 60
Perry, E. Wood Jedediah M. Grant, 1st Mayor 1851-1856 22
Pratt, Lorus Feramorz Little, 4th Mayor 1876-1882 24
Prokopenko, Valentina Untitled 61
Prokopenko, Valentina Untitled 62
Redeker, Peter Landschaft IIIc 64
Redeker, Peter Landschaft IIIcl 63
Richards, Lee Greene Charles Clarence Neslen, 19th Mayor 1920-1928 29
Richards, Lee Greene David Abbott Jenkins, 24th Mayor 1940-1944 28
Richards, Lee Greene Earl J. Glade, 25th Mayor 1944-1956 24
Richards, Lee Greene John M. Wallace, 23rd Mayor 1938-1940 26
Richards, Lee Greene Richard P. Morris, 13th Mayor 1904-1905 25
Richards, Lee Greene Untitled 65
Robinson Iron Untitled (South Fountain)89
Roch, Jules Sunset 66
Schneider/Schulder, Tim Untitled 67
Schneider/Schulder, Tim Untitled 68
Schneider/Schulder, Tim Untitled 69
Shipler, J. W. Delegates to Constitutional Convention, SLC March 2 1895 70
Dodworth Stauffer | 801.582.2787 | www.dodworthart.com
CONDITION REPORT INDEX | CITY COUNTY BUILDING
ARTIST TITLE PAGE #
Stanford, John Untitled 71
Stuart, Gilbert (after)Untitled 72
Sucec and Christensen Untitled 73
Sucec and Christensen Untitled 74
Taggert, George Henry Ezra Thompson, 12th and 14th Mayor 1900-03 / 1906-07 30
Thorpe, Everett Clark J. Bracken Lee, 27th Mayor 1960-1972 31
Unknown artist Untitled (Miracle of the Seagulls)82
Unknown manufacturer Gettysburg Address 83
Unknown manufacturer Untitled (North Fountain)90
Wagner, Randi Untitled 75
Wagrez, Jacques Gypsy Fortune Teller 76
Ward Engineers Liberty Park Plan 77
Warnock, David Untitled 78
Wilson, James Salt Air Summer, 1893 79
Wilson, Kathryn Untitled 80
Wilson, Kathryn Untitled 81
Young, Richard Columbia 88
Dodworth Stauffer | 801.582.2787 | www.dodworthart.com
PRIORITY 1: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Richards, Lee Greene Untitled Painting should be treated by a restoration professional to
repair surface cracking and stabilize area with lifting.
Because painting could be actively deteriorating, use extra
caution when moving, wrapping and transporting the
artwork. Replace plaque.
Max, Peter Untitled COULD NOT LOCATE. This piece was not found in our
examination at the City & County Building. We saw it at the
Salt Lake Airport in 2019. This should be deaccessioned if
it has been permanently transferred to the Airport
Collection.
Schneider, Tim (Schulder?)Untitled COULD NOT LOCATE. This should be deaccessioned
from the collection.
PRIORITY 2: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Houser, Alan May We Have Peace Repair and repaint base. Replace plaque.
Krille, Jean Untitled Painting should be re-framed to mitigate warping. Remove
accretion. Replace plaque.
Krille, Jean Untitled Painting should be re-framed to mitigate warping. Clean
painting. Replace plaque.
Prokopenko, Valentina Untitled Minor restoration is recommended to repair loss at lower
right; tighten corner of frame. Replace plaque.
Prokopenko, Valentina Untitled Minor restoration is recommended to repair loss;
professional surface cleaning; replace or repair the frame.
Replace plaque.
Unknown artist Untitled (Miracle of the Seagulls)If the material in the paint can be identified, scuffs and
scratches could be retouched. To prevent further damage,
relocate or create barrier to protect from accidental contact
from furniture or people. Replace plaque.
PRIORITY 3: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Frankoski, Jim Flower Broom Clean glass/glazing with appropriate solution that won't
create haze or streaks. Replace plaque.
Frankoski, Jim Gerbera Clean glass/glazing with appropriate solution that won't
create haze or streaks. Replace plaque.
Frankoski, Jim Still Life with Asters Clean glass/glazing with appropriate solution that won't
create haze or streaks. Replace plaque.
Frankoski, Jim Still Life with Toucan Clean glass/glazing with appropriate solution that won't
create haze or streaks. Replace plaque.
Stanford, John Untitled Hang in location that does not get direct sunlight to prevent
further deterioration. Replace plaque.
PRIORITY 4: Maintenance Recommendations
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Clawson, John Francis Armstrong, 7th Mayor
1886-1890
Damage on frame could be repaired, but this is not a high
priority.
Clawson, John George Scott, 8th Mayor 1890-
1892
Observed condition issues are minor, but the tear should
be repaired at some point. The issue above the figure's
shoe appears to e remnants of a previous repari. The
cause of discoloration on frame at lower right is unknown,
but could likely be refinished.
Clawson, John R. N. Baskin, 9th Mayor 1892-
1895
Finish on frame could be repaired, but this is not a high
priority.
Clawson, John Samuel C. Park, 16th Mayor
1912-1916
The plaque might have a typo, engraved as "Samual".
Confirm correct spelling and update records or have new
plaque engraved and affixed to frame.
Clawson, John William Jennings, 5th Mayor
1882-84
The very minor areas of loss along bottom edge could be
repaired, but this is not a high priority.
Davis, Sylvia Untitled No maintenance needed at time of inspection. Monitor for
active cracking in left foreleg.
Gittins, Alvin E. J. Garn, 28th Mayor 1972-
1975
Low priority to have fabric re-affixed to the liner of the
frame.
Haddock, Brent Air, Fire, Water The mat and backing material should be replaced with
archival material, but this is not a high priority. Replace
plaque.
Jin, K.Untitled Image is faded and framed with non-archival material. Due
to low-value and low-importance of this item, no action
recommended. Perhaps deaccession. Replace plaque.
Murray, Richard Untitled No maintenance needed at time of inspection. Frame could
be touched-up but not a high priority. Replace plaque.
PRIORITY 4: Maintenance Recommendations [continued]
ARTIST TITLE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Ottinger, George Martin Untitled No maintenance needed at time of inspection. Frame could
be repaired and painting adjusted in the frame to cover
flaws at left margin. Replace plaque.
Nichol, Erskine Steady, Johnnie - Steady The mat appears to be non-archival material, but added
detail is appropriate to age and style of the print. Replace
plaque.
Parkhill, Sue Untitled Due to relatively low-value of this item, no action is
recommended. Consider deaccessioning from collection.
Replace plaque.
Perry, E. Wood Brigham Young No maintenance needed at time of inspection. Frame could
be repaired and painting adjusted in the frame to cover
flaws at left margin.
Pratt, Lorus Feramorz Little, 4th Mayor 1876-
1882
Minor scuff at upper right could be addressed at some
point, but it is not unsightly and appears stable.
Redeker, Peter Landschaft IIIc Image is faded. Due to low-value and low-importance of
this item, no action recommended. Consider
deaccessioning. Replace plaque.
Redeker, Peter Landschaft IIIcl Image is faded. Due to low-value and low-importance of
this item, no action recommended. Consider
deaccessioning. Replace plaque.
Richards, Lee Greene David Abbott Jenkins, 24th
Mayor 1940-1944
No maintenance needed at time of inspection. The minor
issue at could be touched up, but not an immediate
priority.
Roch, Jules Sunset The mat and backing material should be replaced with
archival material, but this is not a high priority. Replace
plaque.
Schneider, Tim (Schulder?)Untitled Image is faded and framed with non-archival material. Due
to low-value and low-importance of this item, no action
recommended. Perhaps deaccession. Replace plaque.
Schneider, Tim (Schulder?)Untitled Image is faded and framed with non-archival material. Due
to low-value and low-importance of this item, no action
recommended. Perhaps deaccession. Replace plaque.
Schneider, Tim (Schulder?)Untitled Image is faded and framed with non-archival material. Due
to low-value and low-importance of this item, no action
recommended. Perhaps deaccession.
Shipler, J. W. Delegates to Constitutional
Convention, SLC March 2 1895
Framed with non-archival material which could cause
discoloration over time; should be replaced with archival
mat and backing, but not a high priority. Replace plaque.
Taggert, George Henry Ezra Thompson, 12th and 14th
Mayor 1900-1903 & 1906-1907
No maintenance needed at time of inspection. The frame
should be repaired, but this is not a top priority.
PRIORITY 4: Plaque Replacement Only
ARTIST TITLE
Baxter, Ken Untitled
Davis, Linda Untitled
Fairbanks, Avard Untitled
Hsieh, Richard Untitled
Karlsbader Untitled
Knaphus, Torleif School Children's Monument
Lee, Lester Untitled
Malin, Elva Untitled
Manzano, C. R. City and County Building
Manzano, C. R. Saltair I
Manzano, C. R. Saltair I 1893-1925
Manzano, C. R. Saltair II
Manzano, C. R. Saltair II 1926-1971
Morrison, Brooke Nine in a Line
Morrison, Brooke Peacock Orchids
Murray, Richard Untitled
Stuart, Gilbert (after)Untitled
Sucec and Christensen Untitled
Sucec and Christensen Untitled
Wagner, Randi Untitled
Wagrez, Jacques Gypsy Fortune Teller
Ward Engineers Liberty Park Plan
Wilson, James Salt Air Summer, 1893
Wilson, Kathryn Untitled
Wilson, Kathryn Untitled
PRIORITY 4: No Issues
ARTIST TITLE
Best, LaVonne Vincent Louis Marcus, 21st Mayor 1932-1936
Caravaglia, Angelo Commerce
Caravaglia, Angelo Justice
Caravaglia, Angelo Liberty
Clawson, John James Sharp, 6th Mayor 1884-1886
Clawson, John John Clark, 11th Mayor 1898-1899
Clawson, John John F. Bowman, 20th Mayor 1928-1931
Clawson, John John S. Bransford, 15th Mayor 1908-1911
Clawson, John William Montague Ferry, 17th Mayor 1916-1919
Cogswell, William Daniel H. Wells, 3rd Mayor 1866-1876
Gittins, Alvin Adiel F. Stewart, 26th Mayor 1956-1960
Gittins, Alvin Conrad B. Harrison, 29th Mayor 1974-1976
Hafen, John James Glendinning, 10th Mayor 1896-1897
Hein, Jeffrey Ralph Becker, 34th Mayor 2008-2016
Lake, Randall Palmer DePaulis, 31st Mayor 1985-1992
Lake, Randall Ted Wilson, 30th Mayor 1976-1985
Newby, Gordon Lewis Commerce
Perova, Galina Deedee Corradini, 32nd Mayor 1992-2000
Perova, Galina Ross C. Anderson, 33rd Mayor 2000-2008
Perry, E. Wood Abraham O. Smoot, 2nd Mayor, 1857-66
Perry, E. Wood Jedediah M. Grant, 1st Mayor 1851-1856
Richards, Lee Greene Charles Clarence Neslen, 19th Mayor 1920-1928
Richards, Lee Greene Earl J. Glade, 25th Mayor 1944-1956
Richards, Lee Greene John M. Wallace, 23rd Mayor 1938-1940
Richards, Lee Greene Richard P. Morris, 13th Mayor 1904-1905
Thorpe, Everett Clark J. Bracken Lee, 27th Mayor 1960-1972
Warnock, David Untitled
Young, Richard Columbia
Unknown Manufacturer Gettysburg Address
Unknown Manufacturer Untitled (North fountain)
Robinson Iron Untitled (South fountain)
ARTIST TITLE PAGE #
Column1 Column2 Column3
Best, LaVonne Vincent Louis Marcus, 21st Mayor 1932-1936 1
Baxter, Ken Untitled 32
Caravaglia, Angelo Commerce 85
Caravaglia, Angelo Justice 84
Caravaglia, Angelo Liberty 86
Clawson, John Francis Armstrong, 7th Mayor 1886-1890 3
Clawson, John George Scott, 8th Mayor 1890-1892 8
Clawson, John James Sharp, 6th Mayor 1884-1886 6
Clawson, John John Clark, 11th Mayor 1898-1899 4
Clawson, John John F. Bowman, 20th Mayor 1928-1931 11
Clawson, John John S. Bransford, 15th Mayor 1908-1911 7
Clawson, John R. N. Baskin, 9th Mayor 1892-1895 2
Clawson, John Samuel C. Park, 16th Mayor 1912-1916 9
Clawson, John William Jennings, 5th Mayor 1882-1884 5
Clawson, John William Montague Ferry, 17th Mayor 1916-1919 10
Cogswell, William Daniel H. Wells, 3rd Mayor 1866-76 12
Davis, Linda Untitled 33
Davis, Sylvia Untitled 34
Fairbanks, Avard Untitled 35
Frankoski, Jim Flower Broom 39
Frankoski, Jim Gerbera 38
Frankoski, Jim Still Life with Asters 37
Frankoski, Jim Still Life with Toucan 36
Gittins, Alvin Adiel F. Stewart, 26th Mayor 1956-60 14
Gittins, Alvin Conrad B. Harrison, 29th Mayor 1974-1976 15
Gittins, Alvin E. J. Garn, 28th Mayor 1972-1975 13
Haddock, Brent Air, Fire, Water 40
Hafen, John James Glendinning, 10th Mayor 1896-1897 16
Hein, Jeffrey Ralph Becker, 34th Mayor 2008-2016 17
Houser, Alan May We Have Peace 92
Hsieh, Richard Untitled 41
Jin, K.Untitled, 42
Karlsbader Untitled 43
Knaphus, Torleif School Children's Monument 91
Krille, Jean Untitled 44
Krille, Jean Untitled 45
Lake, Randall Palmer DePaulis, 31st Mayor 1985-1992 18
Lake, Randall Ted Wilson, 30th Mayor 1976-1985 19
Lee, Lester Untitled 46
Malin, Elva Untitled 47
Manzano, C. R. City and County Building 52
Manzano, C. R. Saltair I 48
Manzano, C. R. Saltair I 1893-1925 50
Manzano, C. R. Saltair II 49
Manzano, C. R. Saltair II 1926-1971 51
Morrison, Brooke Nine in a Line 53
Morrison, Brooke Peacock Orchids 54
Murray, Richard Untitled 55
Murray, Richard Untitled 56
Newby, Gordon Lewis Commerce 87
Nichol, Erskine Steady, Johnnie - Steady 57
Ottinger, George Martin Untitled 58
Parkhill, Sue Untitled 59
Perova, Galina Deedee Corradini, 32nd Mayor 1992-2000 20
Perova, Galina Ross C. Anderson, 33rd Mayor 2000-2008 21
Perry, E. Wood Abraham O. Smoot, 2nd Mayor, 1857-1866 23
Perry, E. Wood Brigham Young 60
Perry, E. Wood Jedediah M. Grant, 1st Mayor 1851-1856 22
Pratt, Lorus Feramorz Little, 4th Mayor 1876-1882 24
Prokopenko, Valentina Untitled 61
Prokopenko, Valentina Untitled 62
Redeker, Peter Landschaft IIIc 64
Redeker, Peter Landschaft IIIcl 63
Richards, Lee Greene Charles Clarence Neslen, 19th Mayor 1920-1928 29
Richards, Lee Greene David Abbott Jenkins, 24th Mayor 1940-1944 28
Richards, Lee Greene Earl J. Glade, 25th Mayor 1944-1956 24
Richards, Lee Greene John M. Wallace, 23rd Mayor 1938-1940 26
Richards, Lee Greene Richard P. Morris, 13th Mayor 1904-1905 25
Richards, Lee Greene Untitled 65
Robinson Iron Untitled (South Fountain)89
Roch, Jules Sunset 66
Schneider/Schulder, Tim Untitled 67
Schneider/Schulder, Tim Untitled 68
Schneider/Schulder, Tim Untitled 69
Shipler, J. W. Delegates to Constitutional Convention, SLC March 2 1895 70
Stanford, John Untitled 71
Stuart, Gilbert (after)Untitled 72
Sucec and Christensen Untitled 73
Sucec and Christensen Untitled 74
Taggert, George Henry Ezra Thompson, 12th and 14th Mayor 1900-03 / 1906-07 30
Thorpe, Everett Clark J. Bracken Lee, 27th Mayor 1960-1972 31
Unknown artist Untitled (Miracle of the Seagulls)82
Unknown manufacturer Gettysburg Address 83
Unknown manufacturer Untitled (North Fountain)90
Wagner, Randi Untitled 75
Wagrez, Jacques Gypsy Fortune Teller 76
Ward Engineers Liberty Park Plan 77
Warnock, David Untitled 78
Wilson, James Salt Air Summer, 1893 79
Wilson, Kathryn Untitled 80
Wilson, Kathryn Untitled 81
Young, Richard Columbia 88
> :c Q > c c -.::: ·o Q Q CL ... .. .iii Cll CL Cll a; .a ... -·.: c u E Cll .. c Ill Cll c .a Cll CL Cll c u E Ill Ill :I .. _e11 Q Q Cll Ill c Ill c ii Cll c ~ c 'a :!! a E .iii ... 'a =s .5! Cll Q 'a :I .. Ill :I t: Q E ·D 111 Cll .. ·.: :I c .. Cll Cll ;t: c Cll O" Q 0 :I ; Ill Cll u =s Cll Ill E E 'a iii 0 Ill CL Ill Ill I!:! iii Ill :e Cll .. Ill Cll E c c .c M U CL Ill E Ill cu .99 Ill Ill 0 E a. I!:! Cll ,!! en > E =s ... ... c CL Ill Ill .. 'a 'a en --u
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAP3 3rd floor hallway, south $ 20,000 061027+1 Best, Lavonne Louis 1934 painting, seated portrait of Louis Marcus with a slight oil on canvas SS 411/2 X 27 signed and gold finish 481/2 x Very good
needed at time of on frame end, west side Vincent Marcus, 21st smile, wearing a dark suit with a white pocket 1/2 dated lower carved wood 341/2 condition inspection. Mayor 1932-handkerchief and dark navy tie, his hands folded in his right frame
36 lap, his legs crossed
7/14/2020
4 Finish on frame Yes-small, PAP4 3rd floor hallway, south $ 100,000 061035 Clawson, John R. N. Baskin, 1895 painting, full length portrait of R. N. Baskin with a long oil on canvas SS 871/2 X 50 signed and gold finish approxim Very good
could be repaired, on frame end, west side 9th Mayor gray beard, wearing a dark three quarter length suit, 1/4 dated lower wood frame ately 96 condition
but this is not a high 1892-1895 standing next to a desk, his right hand on the desk, his left with applied 3/4x 61 priority.
[correction] left hand holding a cane decoration
7/14/2020
4 Damage on frame Yes-small, PAPS 3rd floor hallway, south $ 18,000 061029 Clawson, John Francis 1893 painting, bust portrait of Francis Armstrong with a oil on canvas SS 291/2 X 24 signed and gold finish 411/2 x Very good
could be repaired, on frame end, east side Armstrong, long, graying half goatee, gazing to the right and 1/2 dated lower wood and 36 3/4 condition
but this is not a high 7th Mayor wearing a dark suit with a black, string bow tie right plaster frame priority.
1886-90
7/14/2020
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAPG 3rd floor hallway, south $ 18,000 061032 Clawson, John John Clark, 1900 painting, bust portrait of John Clark with graying long oil on canvas ss311/4x24 signed and gold finish 441/2 x Very good
needed at time of on frame end, east side 11th Mayor beard, wearing a dark suit coat with a silver bow tie, 1/4 dated lower wood frame 38 condition
inspection. 1898-1899 his gaze at the viewer, dark background right with applied
[correction] decoration
7/14/2020
4 The very minor Yes-small, PAP7 3rd floor hallway, south $ 18,000 061038 Clawson, John William no datE painting, bust portrait of William Jennings turned oil on canvas SS 311/2 X 24 not signed gold finish 46x39 Very good
areas of loss along on frame end, east side Jennings, 5th slightly to his left with wavy, brown hair and long 1/2 wood frame condition
bottom edge could Mayor 1882-beard, wearing a dark coat and vest, ochre and brown with applied be repaired, but this
is not a high 84 background, with grey in upper right decoration
priority.
7/14/2020
[correction]
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAPS 3rd floor hallway, south $ 18,000 061031 Clawson, John James Sharp, 1886 painting, bust portrait of a James Sharp with dark oil on canvas SS 311/2 X 24 signed and gold finish 46x39 Very good
needed at time of on frame end, east side 6th Mayor hair, full mustache and long beard, wearing a dark 1/2 dated lower wood frame condition inspection. 1884-86 suit, dark tie barely visible, warm brown background right with applied
decoration
7/14/2020
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAP9 3rd floor hallway, south $ 30,000 061034 Clawson, John John S. 1910 painting, portrait of John S. Bransford with grey hair oil on canvas SS 45 1/2 X 31 signed and gold finish 61x47 Very good
needed at time of on frame end, west side Bransford, and a full mustache, seated in a wooden chair, 1/2 dated lower wood frame condition
inspection. 15th Mayor wearing a double-breasted dark suit, red tie and a right with applied
1908-1911 gold ring on his left hand, holding a rolled piece of decoration
7/14/2020
[correction] paper in his right hand
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAP19 3rd floor hallway, south $ 38,000 061048 Lake, Randall Palmer 1992 painting, three quarter length portrait of Palmer de oil on canvas SS 471/2 X 35 signed and gold finish 57x45 Very good
needed at time of on frame end, west side DePaulis, Paulis wearing a gray suit and red tie, sitting on a 1/2 dated lower wood frame condition inspection. 31st Mayor desk, a yellow notepad and pen on the left, a right with red with applied
1985-92 blueprint of the City and County Building in the left painted chop decoration
7/14/2020
background
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAP20 3rd floor hallway, south $ 42,000 061049 Lake, Randall Ted Wilson, 1986 painting, three quarter length portrait of Ted Wilson oil on canvas SS 541/2 X 35 signed and gold finish 60 3/4x Very good
needed at time of on frame end, west side 30th Mayor standing; wearing a grey suit and red striped tie, his 1/2 dated upper wood frame 413/4 condition
inspection. 1976-85 left hand at his belt, his right hand balanced on a left
wooden table in the lower left
7/14/2020
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAP21 3rd floor hallway, south $ 34,000 none Perova, Galina Deedee 1999 painting, three quarter length portrait of Deedee oil on canvas SS 53 X 39 signed and gold finish 63 x49 Very good
needed at time of on frame end, west side Corradini, Corradini, wearing a red dress with gold buttons, dated lower carved wood condition
inspection. 32nd Mayor standing in front of a fireplace, her left arm draped on left frame
1992-2000 the mantel near a small sculpture of a horse, a
7/14/2020
painting in upper background;
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAP22 3rd floor hallway, south $ 40,000 none Perova, Galina Ross C. 2007 painting, three-quarter length portrait of Ross C. oil on canvas SS 55 3/4x41 signed and stained wood 64x 50 Very good
needed at time of on frame end, east side Anderson, Anderson wearing a blue dress shirt and dark tie, 1/2 dated lower frame condition inspection. 33rd Mayor standing in front of a wooden desk, his left hand in his right
2000-08 pant's pocket, his right on the desk, bookshelves in
7/14/2020
background
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAP23 3rd floor hallway, south $ 18,000 061057 Perry, E. Wood Jedediah M. 1866 painting, bust portrait of Jedediah M. Grant with dark oil on panel SS 29 3/4X 24 not signed gold finish 421/2x Very good
needed at time of on frame end, east side Grant, 1st hair parted on his left, gazing at the viewer, a doss-1/4 wood frame 371/2 condition
inspection. Mayor 1851-cropped beard along his chin line, wearing a dark suit with applied
1856 and white pleated shirt decoration
7/14/2020
[correction]
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAP24 3rd floor hallway, south $ 18,000 061056 Perry, E. Wood Abraham 0. 1866 painting, bust portrait of Abraham 0. Smoot with oil on canvas SS 29 3/4x 24 not signed gold finish 421/2x Very good
needed at time of on frame end, east side Smoot, 2nd Caesar styled, dark hair and a thick chin beard, laid down on 1/4 wood frame 371/2 condition
inspection. Mayor, 1857-wearing a dark suit and Nee-Victorian bow tie, his panel with applied
66 gaze slightly left of center, dark background decoration
7/14/2020
4 Minor scuff at Yes-small, PAP25 3rd floor hallway, north $ 18,000 061054 Pratt, Lorus Feramorz no datE painting, oval shaped, bust portrait of Feramorz Little oil on canvas SS 291/2 X 24 not signed gold finish 421/2x Good
upper right could be on frame end, west side Little, 4th with brown, combed back hair and a long, half 1/2 wood frame 371/2 condition
addressed at some
point, but it is not Mayor 1876-goatee, wearing a dark suit and bow tie, dark with elaborate
unsightly and 82 background applied
appears stable. decoration
7/14/2020
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAP26 3rd floor hallway, south $ 20,000 061062 Richards, Lee Greene Richard P. 1906 painting, portrait of Richard P. Morris with gray hair oil on canvas SS 351/2 X 28 signed and gold finish 471/2x Very good
needed at time of on frame end, west side Morris, 13th and a handle bar mustache, wearing a dark suit and dated upper wood frame 40 condition
inspection. Mayor 1904-vest, holding a scroll in his left hand in lower right right with applied
05 corner decoration
7/14/2020
4 No maintenance Yes-small, PAP27 3rd floor hallway, south $ 25,000 061061 Richards, Lee Greene John M. 1940 painting, portrait of John M. Wallace sitting in a chair, oil on canvas SS 391/2 X 31 signed and gold finish 461/2x Very good
needed at time of on frame end, west side Wallace, wearing a tan suit, green tie and wire framed glasses, 1/2 dated lower carved wood 481/2 condition inspection. 23rd Mayor his hands folded in his lap, his legs crossed, the green left frame
1938-40 surface of a table visible on the right
7/14/2020
4 No maintenance None PAP36 Room 335 City Council $ 5,000 "gift" Fairbanks, Avard Untitled 1982/1 sculpture, a bust portrait of Thomas Jefferson holding cast bronze, 23 1/2" high signature mounted on base is Very good
needed at time of Lobby a quill pen in his right hand, his left hand raised to his inscribed at irregular approxim condition
inspection. chin with two fingers raised back of proper walnut base ately 2"
left shoulder high
7/21/2020
PAP37 Art Barn [this item moved $ 1,300 none Forsyth, Gordon Great Salt 1981 drawing, loosely sketched drawing of Salt Air; graphite on 32 x40 signed, tit led float mounted 42 1/4 x Very good
to Public Art inventory] Lake Mirage graphite on paper paper and annotat ed in st ained 49 1/4 condition
1/3 at lower wood frame
right with mat and
glass
3 Clean glass/glazing None PAP38 5th floor, attorney lounge $ 750 none Frankoski, Jim Still Life with no datE print, still life with toucan in center, stems of orange color image size 22 signed lower dark gray st eel 34 3/4 x Very good
with appropriate [correction] Toucan flowers in lower left, paper wasp nest in lower right, photograph, 3/8x 17 7/8 right ma rgin, frame w ith 29 1/2 condition solution that won't rocks hanging from string in upper right titled lower mat and glass create haze or
streaks. left margin
7/21/2020
3 Clean glass/glazing None PAP39 5th floor, attorney lounge $ 750 none Frankoski, Jim Still Life with no datE print, still life with several stems of pink asters color image size 22 signed lower dark gray 34 3/4 x Very good
with appropriate [correction] Asters arranged on top of singed pieces of paper with photograph, 1/4x177/8 right, titled metal sect ion 29 1/2 condition solution that won't architectural renderings lower left frame with create haze or
streaks. mat and glass
7/21/2020
3 Clean glass/glazing None PAP40 Room 505(A) -attorney's $ 750 none Frankoski, Jim Gerbera no datE print, still life with a grouping of wilted red Gerbera color image size, 22 signed lower light silver 34 7/8 x Very good
with appropriate office daisies, their green stems parallel on a beige ground photograph, 3/8 x 17 7/8 right, titled metal sect ion 29 1/2 condition
solution that won't lower left frame with create haze or
streaks. beaded
decoration
7/16/2020
3 Clean glass/glazing None PAP41 5th floor, attorney lounge $ 750 none Frankoski, Jim Flower no datE print, still life with broom in center, purple and red color image size 22 signed lower light silver 34 3/4 x Very good
with appropriate [correction] Broom wildflowers in its bristles, missing broom handle, photograph, 3/8x17 7/8 right, titled metal sect ion 29 1/2 condition
solution that won't mottled background with touches of blue lower left frame with create haze or
streaks. beaded
decoration
7/21/2020
4 The mat and None PAP42 Attorney's office, Katie $ 525 none Haddock, Brent Air, Fire, no datE print, striated desert landscape at sunrise or sundown serigraph, SS 24 5/8 X 34 not signed silver finish 33 x 42 Very good
backing material Lewis Water with silhouetted ridges in forground, layers of sky and wood frame cond ition
should be replaced clouds in upper third of composition fading from blue with double with archival
material, but this is to pink mat and glass
not a high priority.
7/16/2020
4 No maint enance None PAP43 Mayor's office -east side $ 750 061192 Hsieh, Richard Untitled 2007 painting, landscape, the Salt Lake City and County watercolor, SS 23 X 261/4 signed in dark gold finish 33 x 35 Very good
needed at time of cubilcle pool outside Lisa building in center surrounded by trees in autumn, Chinese wood frame 1/2 condition inspection. Shafer's office several figures near entrance, hazy, blue sky charact ers with mat and
along right glass
9/28/2020
margin
4 Image is faded and None PAP44 Room SOS(A) -attorney's $ 200 not in inv Jin, K. Untitled, no datE print, winter landscape in mauve, dark lavender and color 21 5/8 x 32 3/4 signature natural finish 30x 40 Good
framed with non-office white with snow covered mounds in center, still reproduction reproduced wood frame 1/2 condition
archival material. water on the left and right, group of white barked of original from original with mat and [correct io Due to low-value
and low-importance saplings left of center background watercolor painting at glass n]
of this item, no painting, lower right
action 7/16/2020 n11:::anr:::ant
4 No maintenance None PAP4S Room SOSA, City Attorney $ 2,300 none Karlsbader Untitled no datE painting, winter landscape with still river in center oil on canvas, SS 231/4 X 47 signed lower antiqued dark 33 x S6 Very good
needed at time of reflecting a patch of gray sky in center distance, four 1/4 right brown finish 1/2 condition inspection. large tree trunks on both snow covered banks in wood frame
foreground, forest beyond with linen liner
9/28/2020
and gold fillet
2 Painting should be None PAP46 Mayor's Assistant's office $ S,400 none Krille, Jean Untitled 1986 painting, abstract landscape with prominent dark hill oil on artists 39x39 signed and white metal 391/4x Good
re-framed to in center background, colorful wash and ridges in board, dated lower section frame 391/4 condition
mitigate warping. foreground, dark blue sky with clouds, lavender haze left Remove accretion.
at horizon
7/21/2020
2 Painting should be None PAP47 Mayor's Assistant's office $ 8,000 061047 Krille, Jean Untitled 1987 painting, abstact landscape with sandstone buttes oil on 48x48 signed and white metal 481/4x Good
re-framed to and formations in lower third of the composition, masonite, dated lower section frame 481/4 condition,
mitigate warping. dramatic blue sky with clouds and touches of pink left warped Clean painting.
and
7/21/2020
coming
nut nf
4 No maintenance None PAP48 Attorney's office, Katie $ 1,700 0610SO Lee, Lester Untitled 2003 painting, landscape in summer with a section of a red oil or acrylic on 22 l/4x28 signed and gold finish 29x 3S Very good
needed at time of Lewis house on the right, an old white lean-to or root cellar canvas, dated lower wood frame condition inspection. in center, trees on left and in background, dull green right with applied
lawn decoration and
linen liner
7/16/2020
4 No maintenance None PAP49 Mayor's Assistant's office $ 2,500 not on sp Malin, Elva Untitled no datE painting, landscape, the Salt Lake City and County oil on canvas, SS 171/4 X 23 signed lower gold finish 26x 32 Very good
needed at time of building situated left of center, bracketed by tall trees 1/4 right wood frame condition
inspection. in summer, smaller trees in center, sidewalk in near with applied
foreground along the bottom edge decoration
7/21/2020
4 No maintenance None PAP SO Room 238 (purchasing $ 200 none Manzano, C. R. Saltair I no datE print, detailed view of Saltair, an ornate wooden photolithograp SS 18 X 24 pencil signed brown mottled 28x 34 Good
needed at time of office conference room) building on the shore of the Great Salt Lake, wooden hie and editioned finish wood condition,
inspection. deck with stairs accessing the water in lower right reproduction 186/SOO lower frame with stain
foreground of original pen right margin, double mat
andink titled lower and glass
7/16/2020 rlr::iwina li:>ft m::il'ain
4 No maintenance None PAPSl Room 238 (purchasing $ 200 not in inv Manzano, C. R. Saltair II no datE print, detailed view of Saltair, with three chevron-photolithograp SS 18 X 24 signed lower stained wood 28x 34 Very good
needed at time of office conference room) patterned turrets, the shore of the Great Salt Lake in hie right, frame with [correctio condition
inspection. foreground, wooden stairs on the left leading into the reproduction editioned double mat n]
water of original pen 162/SOO lower and glass
andink right
7/16/2020 rlr::iwina
4 No maintenance None PAPS2 City Council rear office $ 200 none Manzano, C. R. Saltair I no datE print, detailed depiction of Saltair with pennents photolithograp SS 171/2 X 23 signed, titled stained wood 28x 34 Very good
needed at time of 1893-192S flying from several turrets, wooden railing above the hie 1/4 and editioned frame with condition
inspection. water, swimming platform with stairs accessing the reproduction 219/SOO lower double mat
water in lower right of original pen right and glass
7/21/2020
andink
rlr::iwina
4 No maintenance None PAPS3 City Council Northwest $ 200 not in inv Manzano, C. R. Saltair II no datE print, detailed view of Saltair, with three chevron-photolithograp SS 171/4 X 23 signed, titled stained wood 28x 34 Very good
needed at time of conference room 1926-1971 patterned turrets, the shore of the Great Salt Lake in hie 1/4 and editioned frame with condition inspection. foreground, wooden stairs on the left leading into the reproduction 192/SOO lower double mat
water of original pen right and glass
andink
7/21/2020 rlr::11wina
4 No maintenance None PAP54 Room 238 corner office $ 150 not in inv Manzano, C. R. City and no datE print, landscape with the Salt Lake City and County photolithograp SS 101/4X13 signed lower stained wood 20x 24 Very good
needed at time of (John Voyk's office) County building viewed from a low vantage point, a small hie right, titled, frame with condition inspection. Building evergreen in right foreground, a globe-shaped tree on reproduction lower left double mat
left, three birds flying in sky with clouds of original pen and glass
andink
7/16/2020 rlr:11wina
1 Original at airport. None PAP SS Unknown -a poster of this $ 9;599 not in inv Max, Peter Untitled no datE mixed media, depiction of the American flag with four mixed media, approximately signed upper unframed n/a Very good
No not accession work is hanging in the large stars and a red heart in the blue field upper right paint, collage, 65x 100 right condition
this poster. Mayor's office east side corner, solid red stripes, white stripes composed of etc.
cubicle pool -IT'S IN various child drawn images of flags, Olympic symbols
STORAGE CLOSET AT SL etc.
AIRPnRT
4 No maintenance None PAP56 5th floor, attorney lounge $ 200 none Morrison, Brooke Nine in a Line no datE print, composition of nine squares in a horizontal line, color etching plate marks editioned black finish ll 3/4x Very good
needed at time of [correction] each with an additional element of a red flower, approximately 43/200and and stained 33 condition
inspection. progressing from the left toward the right 2 3/4 x 21/4, titled lower wood frame
SS 3 3/4 X 25 left, signed with matand
7/21/2020
1/2 lower right glass
4 No maintenance None PAP57 Room 505(A) -attorney's $ 300 none Morrison, Brooke Peacock no datE print, still life with a gouping of thin stemmed white relief print, SS 241/2X18 signed lower stained wood 35 1/2 x Very good
needed at time of office Orchids flowers with red centers on an oval shaped beige embossed 1/2 right frame with 281/2 condition inspection. background mat and glass
7/16/2020
4 No maintenance None PAP SS Room 505(A) -attorney's $ 5,500 061053 Murray, Richard Untitled 1982 painting, landscape with wide, gently flowing river oil on canvas ss311/2x43 signed and dark gold finish 411/2 x Very good
needed at time of office -Main Lobby with blue sky and trees reflecting off its surface, 1/2 dated lower wood frame 531/2 condition
inspection. quaking aspen sapling on the shore in left foreground, right
dark branch in upper right corner
7/16/2020
4 No maintenance None PAP59 3rd Floor, Mayor's Office $ 9,500 0061052 Murray, Richard Untitled 1974 painting, landscape at sunrise or sundown with oil on canvas SS 451/2 X 59 signed and gold and dark 52 1/2 x Very good
needed at time of Reception [correction] slightly diagonal horizon in upper third of the 3/4 dated lower [correction] 661/2 condition
inspection. Frame composition with a dark field in foreground, the tips right stained wood could be touched-
up but not a high of grasses illuminated by the sun frame
priority.
7/21/2020
4 The mat appears to None PAP60 Room 505(A) -attorney's $ 200 none Nichol, Erskine Steady, no datE print, a genre scene of a grandfatherly figure dressed handcolored image size 23 signature brown and 39x 33 Very good
be non-archival offices hallway Johnnie-in a brown coat and maroon cap striding alongside a engraving 1/2c18 3/4 reproduced in gold finish 1/2 condition
material, but added
detail is appropriate [correction] Steady young boy carrying his fishing pole tightly in his hands plate at lower wood frame
to age and style of with a fishing basket at his waist right with trench
the print.
7/16/2020
mat and glass
4 No maintenance None. PAP61 Mayor's office east side of $ 10,000 061055 Ottinger, George Ma Untitled 1870 painting, portrait of George Washington, his arm oil on canvas SS 44 3/4 X 31 signed and gold finish 57 3/4x Very good
needed at time of reception raised with a sword, riding a white striding horse, 3/4 dated lower wood frame 421/2 condition
inspection. Frame billowing clouds in the sky right with applied could be repaired
and painting decoration
adjusted in the
frame to cover 7/21/2020
4 Due to relatively None. PAP62 Room 238 corner office $ 2,000 none Parkhill, Sue Untitled no datE painting, seascape with rolling waves crashing, oil on canvas SS 231/2 X 35 signed lower stained wood 311/4x Very good
low-value of this (John Voyk's office) prominent black rock on left, rock cliff edge on right, 2/2 right and gold finish 431/4 condition
item, no action is two seagulls flying low in center frame with recommended.
Consider black velvet
deaccessioning liner
from collection. 7/16/2020
4 No maintenance Plaque on PAP63 Council Chambers $ 200,000 0875 Perry, E. Wood Brigham 1866 painting, full portrait of Brigham Young standing next oil on canvas SS 951/2 X 53 not signed elaborate approxim Very good
needed at time of frame. Young to a round table, a book in his right hand, a large carved wood ately 156 restored inspection. Frame globe in lower left corner, dark curtain parted to frame with x94 repaired could be repaired
and painting reveal a view of the Salt Lake Temple in background high relief condition
adjusted in the
7/21/2020 frame to cover
2 Minor restoration is None. PAP64 Mayor's office east side of $ 2,500 none Prokopenko, Valenti! Untitled no datE painting, still life with two pots of overflowing oil on linen 26 3/4x35 signed verso gold finish 31x39 Very good
recommended to reception flowers, yellow and orange marigolds spilling onto the wood frame 1/2 condition
repair loss at lower surface in foreground, mounds of blue and lavender right; tighten corner
of frame. flowers above
7/21/2020
2 Minor restoration is None. PAP65 City Council East meeting $ 1,500 061026 Prokopenko, Valenti• Untitled 1946 painting, landscape in spring with two pink, oil on linen 22 1/2 x 22 1/2 signed and cream finish 28x27 Very good
recommended to room blossoming trees in green field, rolling hills with pink, dated verso wood frame 1/2 condition repair loss; blue and green patches continuing into the distance professional surface
cleaning; replace or to a high horizon
repair the frame.
7/21/2020
4 Image is faded.Due None PAP66 Room 245 northeast office $ 300 none Redeker, Peter Landschaft 1978 print, landscape, grassy field with large bush at left, color etching unknown signed and metal section unknown Assumed
to low-value and lllcl another at center, small trees along horizon in [correction] titled lower frame with very good
low-importance of distance margin mat and glass condition this item, no action
recommended.
Consider
deaccessioning. 7/16/2020
4 Image is faded.Due None PAP67 Room 245 northeast office $ 300 none Redeker, Peter Landschaft 1978 print, landscape, grass and shrubs in field in color etching unknown signed and metal section unknown Assumed
to low-value and Ille foreground, three trees along horizon [correction] titled lower frame with very good low-importance of margin mat and glass condition this item, no action
recommended.
Consider
deaccessioning. 7/16/2020
1 The painting should None PAP68 Mayor's office -not hung $ 12,000 8194 Richards, Lee Greene Untitled 1938 painting, landscape of the Salt Lake valley, green oil on canvas SS 291/2 X 35 signed lower gold finish 351/2 x Good
be treated by a shrubs and trees in near foreground, multi-storied 3/4 right, dated wood frame 411/2 condition
professional to buildings in center foreground, the State Capitol lower left repair surface
cracking and building on a rise on the right, hazy mountains in
stabilize area with background, glowing, cloudy sky
lifting. Because 7/21/2020
4 The mat and None PAP69 Room 505(A) -attorney's $ 325 none Roch, Jules Sunset no datE print, vertical landscape composed of flat graphic serigraph 33 1/2 x 21 3/4 signed lower dark stained 421/2 x Very good
backing material office "layers" of rust colored hills in foreground, billowing right wood frame 30 condition
should be replaced gray and white clouds above with a small section of with matand with archival
material, but this is sky repeating the colors of the land below glass
not a high priority.
7/16/2020
1 missing item missing PAP70 Unknown [DID NOT FIND $ 150 none Schneider, Tim (City 1 Untitled no datE four photographs, southwest landscape with color SS 101/4x 15 signed lower stained wood 171/4 x Very good
item DURING INSPECTION] prominent sandstone butte on left, two smaller photograph 1/4 left frame with 211/4 condition
sandstone pinnacles on right, starry night sky above double mat
7/16 DID
and glass
NOT FIND
4 Image is faded and None PAP71 Room 532, conference $ 150 none Schneider, Tim (City 1 Untitled no datE four photographs, vertical landscape with sandstone color SS 151/4x 10 signed lower stained wood 211/4 x Fair
framed with non-room monument in center, dark and lighter striations in the photograph 1/4 left frame with 171/4 condition
archival material. rock, dark sky with streaks of wispy clouds double mat [correctio Due to low-value
and low-importance and glass n]
of this item, no
action 7/16/2020
4 Image is faded and None PAP72 Room 532, conference $ 150 none Schneider, Tim (City' Untitled no datE four photographs, description; extensive desert color SS 143/4X 19 signed lower stained wood 231/4x Fair
framed with non-room landscape with shadowed canyons carved through photograph 1/4 left frame with 27 condition
archival material. sandstone in foreground, several buttes in distance at triple mat and [correctio Due to low-value
and low-importance the horizon line, pale clear sky glass n]
of this item, no
action 7/16/2020
4 Image is faded and None PAP73 Room 532, conference $ 150 none Schneider, Tim (City' Untitled no datE four photographs, vertical section of a mountain color SS 153/4X10 signed lower stained wood 21x17 Fair
framed with non-room slope, trees in autumn colors in foreground, lightly photograph 1/4 left frame with 3/4 condition
archival material. snow-covered rocky portion beyond, triangular double mat [correctio Due to low-value
and low-importance section of white sky above and glass n]
of this item, no
action 7/16/2020
4 Framed with non-PAP74 City Council rear office $ 2,500 061063 Shipler, J. W. Delegates to no datE print, oval shaped portraits of men arranged photographic SS 161/4X19 not signed gold finish 33 x 37 Very good
archival material Constitutiona uniformly on white background, a slightly larger copy of original 1/4 wood frame condition
which could cause I Convention, portrait in the center, an image of the Salt Lake with velvet discoloration over
time; should be SLC March 2 County building in bottom center liner, gold
replaced with 1895 fillet, mat and
archival mat and 7/21/2020 al::ic:c:
3 Hang in location PAP75 Lisa Shafer's office $ 1,250 8187 Stanford, John Untitled no datE painting, landscape with a stagecoach crossing a oil on canvas 24x36 signed lower gold finish and 31 x43 Good
that does not get [correction] stream, pulled by four running horses, dry yellow right stained wood condition, direct sunlight to grasses at their feet, two drivers with hats at the frame with cracking prevent further
deterioration. reins, mountains in background linen liner and in sky at
gold fillet top,
7/21/2020 ::innP::irc:
4 No maintenance None PAP76 City Council office east $ 100 1921 Stuart, Gilbert (after] Untitled no datE print, Gilbert Stuart's [correction] iconic bust portrait photo SS 231/4X 17 not signed, stained wood 271/2x Very good
needed at time of side of George Washington with bottom inscription in mechanical 1/2 inscribed "Hnr. frame with 211/2 condition
inspection. lower left, unfinished bottom section revealing the reproduction Louis Marcus -glass
white canvas Compliments
of Geo H.
7/21/2020 rl11>rn
4 No maintenance None PAP77 City Attorney's office, $ 4,000 none Sucec and ChristensE Untitled no datE sculpture, seagull head from the neck up, beak closed cast bronze 6" high signatures of mounted on Very good
needed at time of lounge [correction] and eyes open, focused straight ahead with green both artists on flat, square condition
inspection. patina base integral base
7/16/2020
4 No maintenance None PAP78 City Attorney's office, $ 4,000 none Sucec and ChristensE Untitled no datE sculpture, honeybee with wings at rest, prominent cast bronze 11/2" high signatures of mounted on Very good
needed at time of lounge [correction] parallel lines on its abdomen, thick antenna with green and both artists on flat, square condition
inspection. brown patina base integral base, 6
x6
7/16/2020
4 No maintenance None PAP79 Mayor's office [correction] $ 2,700 061070 Wagner, Randi Untitled no datE painting, landscape with dry flat wash along bottom oil or acrylic on SS 17 X47 signed lower gold finish 18 l/4x Very good
needed at time of third of the composition, rust colored slope with canvas right metal section 48 condition
inspection. green foliage behind, gray mountain in distance with frame
prominent peak right of center
7/21/2020
4 No maintenance None PAP80 City Council office above $ 30,000 061070 Wagrez, Jacques Gypsy 1901 painting, bare-footed, seated gypsy woman reading oil on canvas ss [correction] signed and ornate flat 53 x41 Very good
needed at time of fireplace Fortune the palm of a woman wearing an ornate pink velvet 38 3/4x27 dated lower gold finish 1/2 condition inspection. Teller dress, a richly dressed gentleman on her left and left frame with
another woman on her right with a basket of flowers ornate
in the lower right foreground decoration
7/21/2020
PAP107 top of building $ 30,000 none Young, Richard Columbia 1989 sculpture, allegorical representation of Columbia,
robed, crowned female figure holding a torch in her
left hand, her right hand above her head, holding an
eagle?
repoussee
copper sheet
with dark
patina
approximately could not n/a
14 feet high examine for
signature due
to placement
on roof
n/a Very good
condition
as viewed
from a
distance
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:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE:March 2, 2021
RE:2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing on the proposed Street Lighting master plan. The new plan
synthesizes community feedback and technical advice into a document by which the department
proposes to guide street lighting improvement and maintenance throughout the city. The plan seeks to
create accommodation for different lighting needs and desires throughout the city.
Adoption of the street lighting master plan does not have a budget impact for this fiscal year; however
it is likely that deliberation on and adoption of the plan would pave the way for a new capital
improvement program and financial strategy for the Street Lighting enterprise fund. These
subsequent phases would have budgetary impacts for the enterprise fund, as well as potential impacts
to ratepayers.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
From the transmittal: “The most recent street lighting plan was completed in 2006. In 2013, the
management of the streetlight system was transferred from the Transportation Division to the
Department of Public Utilities. This transfer included changing the funding source for the operation,
maintenance and capital improvements of the system from the General Fund and Special Assessment
Areas [SAA] to a newly created street lighting enterprise fund.”
The city provides different tiers of lighting service through the Street Lighting enterprise fund that the
current system inherited from the previous SAA structure; for example, enhanced lighting areas in
Rose Park, Yalecrest, and in the downtown area are assessed different rates for corresponding lighting
service that varies from the basic streetlighting in most of the city. Additionally, the department
maintains a private lighting program that receives a $20,000 annual grant from the general fund. This
funding allows property owners to obtain matching funds from the city for private light installation in
the public right-of-way. Maintenance of those private lights is the responsibility of the property owner,
although the department facilitates access to a lighting contractor to support that.
From the transmittal: “During the first few years of conversion to the new LED fixtures mainly within
industrial, commercial and higher density residential areas, Public Utilities received more positive
feedback than negative. When installation [of new LED lights] began in the residential neighborhoods,
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 2, 2021
Public Hearing: TBD
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
1
7
3
0
8
there were more complaints. Residents were not pleased with the brightness of the lights as well as the
white light emitted. The City is also proactively working on various streets projects, community
improvement projects, pedestrian and bicycle friendly projects, and issues related to crime. Street
lighting has a role to play in all of these endeavors.” To this end, the plan also contemplates its
intersections with other adopted city planning documents. (transmittal page 39 et seq., plan page 19 et
seq.)
The department conducted extensive outreach through community and technical advisor groups. A
more detailed report on the outreach is located in the transmittal on pages three and four.
Furthermore, Council Members met in small groups with the administration to discuss the plan over
the summer of 2020.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Administration transmittal
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Council Members often receive persistent and sometimes conflicting requests from
community members and community groups for lighting.
a. The Council might be interested in hearing from the administration about how
requests from community members and community groups would be vetted so
that lighting implementation takes place with inclusive engagement.
b. Council Members might wish to know how the administration proposes
resolving conflicting lighting requests; e.g. would those be resolved by taking
polls of property owners; what other methods would be available to determine
how to move forward when requests are conflicting for one area.
2. Council Members have adopted the expectation through resolution that master plans
go through a vetting process that includes review by the city’s Planning Commission.
The Street Lighting master plan has been in progress since before that resolution was
officially adopted in 2020. The Council has adopted other planning documents since
the resolution adoption that have not been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
a. Council Members might wish to request feedback from the administration on
the potential value of the Planning Commission reviewing the lighting plan
before its potential adoption.
3. The Council might wish for more specific figures related to the anticipated annual
budget impact when it comes to ongoing, regular implementation of the guidance in the
plan.
a. Additionally, when it comes to annual budget deliberations for the Street
Lighting enterprise fund, the Council might request a more extensive oversight
and guidance role when it comes to capital planning and appropriations for
each coming year, not unlike the general fund capital improvement program
process.
b. An opportunity to review this enterprise fund budget in greater depth each year
and throughout the interim could give the Council greater opportunity to review
the capital planning and budget proposals for equity considerations.
c. Because the technical and service requirements of the Street Lighting fund are
different from the other Public Utilities enterprise funds, additional budget
oversight and engagement could be more appropriate when it comes to the
improvements and expansions of the city’s lighting system on the basis of the
proposed plan.
Page | 3
1
7
3
0
8
4. Community members have inquired about the creation of enhanced lighting areas
through the general fund capital improvement program (CIP). Council Members might
ask for feedback from the department about the feasibility of creating these enhanced
lighting areas through general fund CIP, and then transferring the asset to the
enterprise fund for maintenance and cost recovery through increased lighting fees.
APPENDIX A
The master plan proposes the following policy statements (transmittal page 18; plan page 10):
Based on the application of planning guideposts and input of the steering and
technical committees, the master plan implements the following major policies:
• Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation
of industry recognized standards.
• Street lighting standards include allowances to encourage dimming strategies
relating to pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies lighting.
• Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from
light trespass, light pollution, and glare through the selection and placement of
appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels.
• Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in
accordance with the typologies in this plan.
• Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive
wildlife species.
• Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection.
• Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole,
fixture type, maximum and minimum light level, and the implementation of
adaptive dimming applications when appropriate.
The plan also enumerates a number of implementation priorities and steps; “proposed for
highest priority are neighborhoods current underserved for street and/or pedestrian
lighting based on adjacent land uses.” (plan page 11) Furthermore, “high conflict areas”
such as neighborhood byways and transit stations are proposed to be highest priority.
High conflict refers to the potential for an area to have a diversity of uses and needs. The
plan offers a helpful side-by-side table showing how the policy proposals have been
revised from their 2006 predecessors. (transmittal pages 34-35, plan pages 14-15)
Page | 4
1
7
3
0
8
APPENDIX B
The plan proposes the following process for implementation (transmittal page 19, plan
page 11). This process, all four steps, would take place systematically based on
recommendations and classifications made in the plan.
STEP ONE:
• Identify high conflict areas in the City
• Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods
and high conflict areas
• Respond to request from community or neighborhood for lighting change
STEP TWO:
• Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify
priorities and review options according to the matrix
•Identify neighborhood-preferred option according to the matrix
STEP THREE:
• Estimate cost of preferred option
• Seek funding approval
STEP FOUR:
• Design, schedule and implement preferred option
Page | 5
1
7
3
0
8
APPENDIX C
Page | 6
1
7
3
0
8
APPENDIX D
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
LAURA BRIEFER, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
1
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 10-14-2020
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Amy Fowler, Chair
Laura Briefer, Director, Department of Public Utilities
2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan
STAFF CONTACTS: Jesse Stewart, Deputy Director, jesse.stewart@slcgov.com;
Jason Brown, PE, Chief Engineer, jason.brown@slcgov.com;
David Pearson, PE, Street Lighting Manager, david.pearson@slcgov.com;
Jeff Snelling, PE, Senior Engineer, jeff.snelling@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT: The adoption of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan does not have a budget impact
for this fiscal year. The Street Lighting Utility budget is prepared annually, and implementation of this proposed plan will
be reflected in future annual budgets. Due to certain recommended changes related to pedestrian lighting and safety, it is
anticipated that Public Utilities will need to prepare an updated capital improvement program and financial strategy for
the Street Lighting Enterprise Fund to implement the Plan beginning in Fiscal Year 2022.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Salt Lake City was the 5th City in the United States to have streetlights. The City’s first systematic plan for installing
streetlights was adopted in 1908. The most recent street lighting plan was completed in 2006. In 2013, the management of
the streetlight system was transferred from the Transportation Division to the Department of Public Utilities. This transfer
included changing the funding source for the operation, maintenance and capital improvements of the system from the
General Fund and Special Assessment Areas (SAA’s) to a newly created street lighting enterprise fund.
Currently Public Utilities maintains over 15,500 streetlights within Salt Lake City boundaries. The Street Lighting
Enterprise Fund was primarily developed to maintain existing lighting and upgrade fixtures to newer technology LED.
First generation LED lights installed had few options regarding lumen output (measure of light output and brightness) and
color temperature (whiteness of the light). The City’s practice was to replace the older fixtures with LED fixtures at the
same lumen output using a 4,000-Kelvin temperature, which at the time was the industry standard. These new LED
fixtures had the same measurable light output but were perceived as a brighter light. During the first few years of
conversion to the new LED fixtures mainly within industrial, commercial and higher density residential areas, Public
Utilities received more positive feedback than negative. When installation began in the residential neighborhoods, there
were more complaints. Residents were not pleased with the brightness of the lights as well as the white light emitted. The
City is also proactively working on various streets projects, community improvement projects, pedestrian and bicycle
10/14/2020
1/13/2021
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 13, 2021 13:43 MST)
friendly projects, and issues related to crime. Street lighting has a role to play in all of these endeavors.
2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Development and Content
In 2018, Public Utilities began the process of updating the Streetlighting Master Plan (Plan). This planning effort includes
a review and update of policies related to the system, engagement of stakeholders in the planning process and design
guidance for the City’s street light system.
Public Utilities partnered with GSBS Consulting and Clanton & Associates to develop the Plan. This Plan provides design
guidance for improving street and pedestrian lighting that will create a quality nighttime visual experience while being
more energy efficient. Four guideposts, developed by stakeholder committees, that include Safety, Character,
Responsibility, and Equity, drive the Plan’s policies. The Plan also draws on bodies of knowledge throughout the world
regarding advancements in the technology and science of how we can light our public ways.
The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan incorporates two volumes, including the Master Plan itself and Technical Guidance
and Implementation guide. Both are attached to this transmittal, as well as the Executive Summary for the Master Plan.
Primary components of the Plan include:
•System Background
•System Evaluation
•Plan Guideposts
•Street Lighting Basics Overview
•Process for Evaluating the Lighted Environment
•Comprehensive Improvements
•Minimal Improvements
•Lighting Controls and Adaptive Dimming Strategies
•Lighting Calculations
•Appendices
o Lighting Terms
o Meeting Notes
o Existing Conditions Report
o Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health (report)
o Luminaire Submittal Form
If approved, the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan would implement the following major policy statements for the City:
1)Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation of industry recognized standards.
2)Street lighting standards will include allowances to encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity,
wildlife, and dark skies lighting.
3) Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from light trespass, light pollution,
and glare through the selection and placement of appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels.
4) Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in accordance with the typologies of this
Plan.
5) Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species.
6) Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection.
7) Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole, fixture type, maximum and
minimum light level, and the implementation of adaptive dimming applications when appropriate.
Funding and prioritization are the key drivers in implementation of the polices, standards, and strategies in the Plan.
Implementation recommendations outlined in the Plan are as follows:
1)Priority One
a.Neighborhoods currently underserved for street and/or pedestrian lighting based on adjacent land uses
b. High conflict areas including school zones, bus stops, transit stations, and neighborhood byways.
2)Priority Two
a. Areas with non-compliant existing street lighting.
3) Ongoing
a. Replacement of lamps with LED luminaires on regular maintenance schedule as appropriate.
b. Replacement of non-compliant street lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity.
c. Installation of dimming capability.
d. New development or redevelopment proposals.
4) Step One
a. Identify high conflict areas in the City
b. Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods.
c. Respond to requests from community or neighborhoods for lighting changes
5) Step Two
a. Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify priorities and review options according
the matrix developed in the Plan.
b. Identify the community preferred option.
6) Step Three
a. Estimate cost of preferred option.
b. Seek funding approval/develop financial strategy
7) Step Four
a. Design, schedule, and implement the preferred option.
If the Plan is adopted, it will reflect public feedback and the City’s street lighting system will be better incorporated into
City livability and development goals. Major changes in the 2020 Plan from the 2006 Plan include a systematic approach
for choosing lighting strategies of public ways based on adjacent land use, pedestrian activity, and street typology.
Procedures for determining pedestrian lighting are included, as are lighting procedures for environmentally sensitive
areas. Because of this, the current base street lighting standard will likely change depending on the land use, pedestrian
activity, and street typology. It is anticipated that Public Utilities will need to prepare an updated capital improvement
program and schedule for the street lighting system if this Plan is adopted, along with an updated evaluation of street
lighting rates, rate structure and financial strategies for capital improvements.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Public Utilities consistently receives feedback regarding the current lighting system, both positive and negative. A major
driver of the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan includes this public feedback. For instance, Public Utilities has received
feedback regarding the performance of LED fixtures, public safety, environment, and equity.
As part of the Plan effort, three groups were formed to advise in the development of the Plan. The first group, the
Advisory Committee, consisted of representatives from each City Council District recommended by City
Councilmembers or Council staff. Advisory Committee members were asked to provide input on lighting in their specific
district and in common areas of the City. Throughout the course of developing the Plan this committee helped in
evaluating the existing system and provided guidance pertaining to the Plan’s scope and reach.
A second group formed as a Technical Committee consisting of staff from City Departments and Divisions who hold a
direct interest in the street lighting program. Technical Committee members include representatives from Salt Lake City
Police Department, Fire Department, Sustainability Department, Engineering Division, Planning Division, and the Urban
Forestry Division. Technical Committee members provided input based on their unique responsibilities with respect to
how streetlighting influenced their tasks. This committee provided direction in how lighting design criteria could assist in
meeting the City’s goals and more specifically, helping to accomplish their Department’s individual responsibilities.
The third group was formed from stakeholders in the community including representatives from agencies and groups in
the transportation, education, environmental, and business sectors who have a vested interest in Salt Lake City. The
primary purpose of this group was to provide input as the Plan progressed. This provided a level of transparency and
allowed for feedback to ensure the Plan had a solid foundation to address the multiple values of a comprehensive lighting
system.
Public Utilities and the GSBS Consulting team met with the Advisory and Technical Committees to help frame the vision
and goals of the Plan. The committees were encouraged to offer their opinion on existing lighting conditions throughout
the City and what improvements could be made. These Committees toured 17 sites throughout the City with varied
lighting characteristics and land use. At each of these sites committee members were asked several questions to gauge
their opinion on the existing lighting conditions. The GSBS Consulting team also took light measurements at each of these
locations to compare with current industry lighting standards. Using the data collected from the measured light readings
and input from the committees, GSBS created an Existing Lighting Conditions report. This report summarized current
lighting conditions to assist with developing design criteria and a future implementation plan using the guideposts detailed
in the Plan.
Meetings and Formal Engagement:
•November 5, 2018: Street Lighting Site Tour and Surveys – Advisory and Technical Committees
•April 3, 2019: Street Lighting 101 – Advisory Committee
•April 25, 2019: Visioning Session – Advisory Committee
•April 26, 2019 – Technical Committee
•May 24, 2019: City Council and Mayor’s Office Briefing
•July 29 and 30, 2019: Stakeholder Update
•April 2019 – November 2019: Public Street Lighting Survey, 160 respondents
•January 8, 2020: Progress Update – Advisory Committee
•October 22nd, 2020: Public Utilities Advisory Committee (planned)
Enclosures:
Draft Ordinance Adopting the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan
2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Executive Summary
2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Volume 1 – Master Plan (June 2020)
2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Volume 2 – Technical Guidance and Implementation (June 2020)
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Street Lighting Master Plan
VOLUME 1 - MASTER PLAN
JUNE 2020
3
INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS..........7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................. 9
Current System Evaluation ................................9
Policy Statements ................................................10
Implementation Steps ..........................................11
SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY ..........................13
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION ..........................16
CURRENT LIGHTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ...16
2006 Street Lighting Master Plan .............16
Special Improvement Districts ...................16
Private Lighting Program ..............................16
EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ........................17
Process ...................................................................17
CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE .................................19
Plan Salt Lake ......................................................19
Neighborhood Master Plans ......................20
Lighting Levels & Gaps ..................................24
Evaluation by Community/District ..........25
PLAN GUIDEPOSTS ..................................................27
Safety .........................................................................27
Character ..................................................................27
Responsibility .........................................................27
Equity .........................................................................28
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW ..................29
SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS ............................29
Health and Wellbeing..........................................29
Wildlife Impacts .....................................................29
LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS ..................................29
Appropriate Light Levels ..................................29
Glare Reduction .....................................................31
Uniformity vs. Contrast ......................................32
Adaptation ...............................................................33
Color Rendering and Nighttime
Visibility ....................................................................34
Color Temperature and Nighttime
Visibility .....................................................................35
Light Trespass ........................................................36
Light Pollution ........................................................37
COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................38
Initial Costs ..............................................................38
Long Term Life Cycle Costs .............................38
Maintenance ............................................................39
Energy ........................................................................39
Standardization .....................................................39
STREET LIGHTING PLAN..........................................40
Lighting Improvement Strategies ...........40
Purpose ................................................................40
Lighting Layout Strategies .........................40
Street Lighting Only ........................................42
Street and Pedestrian Lighting .................43
Pedestrian Lighting Only .............................44
TA
B
L
E
O
F
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Special Lighting Districts ............................ 45
Intersection Lighting .....................................46
Vertical Illumination in Crosswalks ..........47
Bus Stop ..............................................................48
Environmentally Protected Areas ...........48
IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING .......48
Street Lighting Equipment and
Technology ........................................................50
Lighting Improvements
Complexity & Cost ...........................................52
Minimal 1-for-1 Replacements .....................52
Supplemental .....................................................52
Comprehensive .................................................52
PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ...........52
Areas Underserved by
Street Lighting ...................................................53
High Priority Conflict Areas ........................53
1-for-1 Lighting Improvements ...................57
APPENDIX ..........................................................59
A. Glossary of Lighting Terms ........................59
B. Committee Meeting Notes ..........................61
C. Existing Conditions Report
Presentation ......................................................67
D. Nocturnal Infrastructure for
Ecological Health ...........................................89
E. Luminaire Submittal Forms ......................123
5
FIGURE 1: Site Evaluation Map ...................................10
FIGURE 2: Neighborhood
Master Plans Map – 2017 ...........................................20
FIGURE 3: Street Light Density Map .......................24
FIGURE 4: Community Character Map ..................25
FIGURE 5: Appropriate Light Level ..........................29
FIGURE 6: Glare Reduction ...........................................31
FIGURE 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare ..................................32
FIGURE 8: Adaptation ....................................................33
FIGURE 9: Color Rendering ........................................34
FIGURE 10: Color Temperature ..................................35
FIGURE 11: Light Trespass .............................................36
FIGURE 12: Light Pollution ............................................37
FIGURE 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy &
Balance ...............................................................................38
FIGURE 14: Energy ..........................................................39
FIGURE 15: Street Lighting Warrants Matrix .........41
FIGURE 16: Street Lighting Only
Cross Section ..................................................................42
FIGURE 17: Street & Pedestrian
Lighting Cross Section............................................... 43
FIGURE 18: Pedestrian Only
Lighting Cross Section...............................................44
FIGURE 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section .............. 45
FIGURE 20: Intersection Lighting Plan ..................46
FIGURE 21: Crosswalk Lighting ..................................47
FIGURE 22: School Locations .....................................53
FIGURE 23: Bus Stop Locations ................................54
FIGURE 24: Transit Stations .........................................55
FIGURE 25: Neighborhood Byways .........................56
TABLE OF FIGURES TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Plan Policy Statement Comparison
2006-2020 ........................................................................14
TABLE 2: Street and Sidewalk Lighting
Conditions Council District Locations ..................17
TABLE 3: Street and Sidewalk
Existing Lighting Ratings ............................................19
TABLE 4: Street Lighting Policy
and Implementation Items .........................................21
TABLE 5: Lighting Layout Strategy
By Land Use ....................................................................49
TABLE 6: Recommended Luminaries
By Land Use ......................................................................51
6
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
7
The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan was
developed with the input and guidance of two
committees and reviewed by a Stakeholders
group. The Advisory Committee included
representatives from:
• Each City Council District
• Department of Public Utilities
• Mayor’s Office
The Advisory Committee met six times during
the process to provide guidance on policy
issues:
• Street Lighting Site Tour & Surveys
(November 5, 2018)
• Street Lighting 101 (April 3, 2019)
• Visioning Session (April 25, 2019)
• Council & Mayor’s Office Briefing (May 24,
2019)
• Stakeholder Update (July 30, 2019)
• 50% Progress Update (January 8, 2020)
The Advisory Committee created a list of
lighting concerns and priorities for each district
across the City as well as provided guidance on
the City’s street lighting vision and guideposts.
Notes from their meetings are found in the
appendix.
The second committee was the Technical
Committee with representatives from the
following City departments:
• Police
• Fire
• Sustainability
• Engineering
• Planning
• Urban Forestry
Technical Committee members represented
the interests of their departments in the master
planning process. They also participated in the
street lighting site tour. Technical Committee
input also contributed to the vision and guiding
principles used in the planning process. Notes
from their meetings are found in the appendix.
The current system evaluation and the plan
vision and guideposts were reviewed by
stakeholder groups on July 29-30, 2019 with
representatives from:
• Education
• Business
• Transit/Multi-modal transportation
• Environmental
Stakeholder input is included in this draft plan.
This draft plan is submitted to the City Council
for review, possible revision, and adoption.
Following adoption, the Department of Public
Utilities will hold a series of community
meetings to familiarize residents, developers,
and stakeholders on the policies, standards and
processes included in this plan.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
T
O
T
H
E
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS
8
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
9
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of
existing street lighting conditions and a
master plan to aid in transitioning all Salt
Lake City-owned street lighting from a high
pressure sodium system to an LED system, a
process begun in 2013. In addition, the master
plan identifies methods to improve visibility
and aesthetics while reducing energy and
maintenance through a lighting control system.
The master plan identifies new street lighting
standards for retrofit and new construction.
The goal of this document is to provide Salt
Lake City with a consistent approach for
street and pedestrian lighting that creates
a quality nighttime visual experience. Street
and pedestrian lighting plays a key role in
how people experience the city in which they
live, work, and play. Lighting helps drivers
and pedestrians understand the streetscape
through visual cues and heightened awareness
of their environment. Providing good visibility
with lighting increases comfort levels and
encourages use of public streets and spaces.
The plan identifies a strategy that balances
safety, character, responsibility, and equity
using a series of guideposts for evaluating the
lit environment and the technical elements of a
streetlighting system.
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION
The Advisory and Technical Committees along
with the consulting team surveyed seventeen
locations in the city. In addition, the consulting
team conducted nighttime surveys and
measured the light levels along primary arterial,
minor arterial, collector and local streets.
Survey sites were selected in each Council
District to represent a variety of existing
lighting conditions throughout the city. Based
on the survey and evaluations, the consulting
team created an Existing Conditions Report
(Appendix C) to aid the city in understanding
relationship of visual perception to measured
light levels.
The consulting team categorized each survey
site according to IES standards acceptability
light level, lamp wattage, street type, luminaire
spacing and measured lighting levels. The four
levels of acceptability are:
• Excellent. the survey sites identified as
“Excellent” received the highest scores from
the Advisory and Technical Committees,
indicating excellent visibility, appropriate
light levels, low glare, uniformity and good
color.
• Acceptable. the street meets lighting
standards based on street classification
and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces
categorized as “Acceptable” require only
LED retrofit.
• Moderate. the street does not meet lighting
standards based on street classification
and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces
categorized as “Moderate” require minor
improvements to address relatively small
dark spaces between poles as well as LED
retrofit.
• Poor. the street has very low or no street
lighting. Block faces categorized as “Poor”
require significant investment in new lighting
and electrical infrastructure to meet lighting
standards.
As seen in Figure 1, of the sites surveyed, 17
percent are categorized as Excellent, 35 percent
are Acceptable, 24 percent are Moderate and
24 percent are Poor.
The following policy statements are intended
to guide the approach to addressing identified
needs and gaps in the City’s current street
lighting as well as apply to future changes in
the system.
10
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
POLICY STATEMENTS
Based on the application of planning guideposts
and input of the steering and technical
committees, the master plan implements the
following major policies:
• Street lighting will enhance safety through
the implementation of industry recognized
standards.
• Street lighting standards include allowances
to encourage dimming strategies relating to
pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies
lighting.
• Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive
effects of light at night resulting from light
trespass, light pollution, and glare through
the selection and placement of appropriate
poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels.
• Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance
with neighborhood plans and in accordance
with the typologies in this plan.
• Provide street and pedestrian lighting that
minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species.
• Select fixture types to provide dark skies
protection.
• Implementation based on neighborhood
and community input to determine pole,
fixture type, maximum and minimum light
level, and the implementation of adaptive
dimming applications when appropriate.
The standards and implementation strategies
to achieve Salt Lake City’s major street lighting
policies are included in this plan. Salt Lake City
utilizes IES standards with allowances to respond
to pedestrian, wildlife, and dark skies priorities.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SLC Public Utilities
Excellent Site
Acceptable Site
Moderate Site
Poor Site
1000 North
I-80
Re
d
w
o
o
d
R
o
a
d
South Temple
400 South
900 South
1300 South
1700 South
Sunnyside Avenue
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
D
r
i
v
e
13
0
0
E
a
s
t
70
0
E
a
s
t
St
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
I-
1
5
90
0
W
e
s
t
1
2
Figure 1: Site Evaluation Map
Site # Site Name Street
Classification
Existing
Lighting
Sterling & American
Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent
Riverside Park
& 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable
Redwood Rd.
& South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor
700 South
& Post Street Local / Residential Poor
500 West & Dalton
Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable
Glendale Dr. &
Navajo St.
Collector / Residential
/ Commercial Moderate
J St. & 2nd Ave. Local / Residential Poor
800 East & South
Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent
200 South & Floral St. Arterial / Commercial Excellent
650 South & Main St. Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
700 East & Harrison
Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor
900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
Layton Ave. & West
Temple Local / Residential Moderate
1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable
19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate
1000 East & 2100
South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Funding and prioritization are the key drivers
in implementation of the policies, standards,
and strategies in this plan. Road classification
and adjacent land use are the driving factors
in selection of street lighting type, spacing and
light levels. There are neighborhoods and high
conflict areas of the City that are recommended
for priority implementation.
In all cases, the initial step in implementation
is coordination with the community and
immediate neighborhood to ensure that the
solution identified meets resident, business
owner and user needs.
Implementation recommendations prioritize
the following:
• PRIORITY ONE:
- Neighborhoods currently underserved
for street and/or pedestrian lighting
based on adjacent land uses.
- High conflict areas including:
• School Zones
• Bus Stops
• Transit Stations
• Neighborhood Byways
• PRIORITY TWO:
- Areas with non-compliant existing
streetlighting (luminaire, light source or
pole spacing)
• ONGOING:
- Replacement of lamps with LED
luminaires on regular maintenance
schedule as appropriate
- Replacement of non-compliant street
lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity
- Installation of dimming capability at
neighborhood request
- New development or redevelopment
proposals
STEP ONE:
• Identify high conflict areas in the City
• Review the current lighting map to identify
underserved neighborhoods and high
conflict areas
• Respond to request from community or
neighborhood for lighting change
STEP TWO:
• Contact community and neighborhood
representatives to identify priorities and
review options according to the matrix
• Identify neighborhood-preferred option
according to the matrix
STEP THREE:
• Estimate cost of preferred option
• Seek funding approval
STEP FOUR:
• Design, schedule and implement preferred
option
12
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Street Lighting Master Plan
VOLUME 1 - MASTER PLAN
JUNE 2020
3
INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS..........7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................9
Current System Evaluation ................................9
Policy Statements ................................................10
Implementation Steps ..........................................11
SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY ..........................13
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION ..........................16
CURRENT LIGHTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ...16
2006 Street Lighting Master Plan .............16
Special Improvement Districts ...................16
Private Lighting Program ..............................16
EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ........................17
Process ...................................................................17
CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE .................................19
Plan Salt Lake ......................................................19
Neighborhood Master Plans ......................20
Lighting Levels & Gaps ..................................24
Evaluation by Community/District ..........25
PLAN GUIDEPOSTS ..................................................27
Safety .........................................................................27
Character ..................................................................27
Responsibility .........................................................27
Equity .........................................................................28
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW ..................29
SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS ............................29
Health and Wellbeing..........................................29
Wildlife Impacts .....................................................29
LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS ..................................29
Appropriate Light Levels ..................................29
Glare Reduction .....................................................31
Uniformity vs. Contrast ......................................32
Adaptation ...............................................................33
Color Rendering and Nighttime
Visibility ....................................................................34
Color Temperature and Nighttime
Visibility .....................................................................35
Light Trespass ........................................................36
Light Pollution ........................................................37
COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................38
Initial Costs ..............................................................38
Long Term Life Cycle Costs .............................38
Maintenance ............................................................39
Energy ........................................................................39
Standardization .....................................................39
STREET LIGHTING PLAN..........................................40
Lighting Improvement Strategies ...........40
Purpose ................................................................40
Lighting Layout Strategies .........................40
Street Lighting Only ........................................42
Street and Pedestrian Lighting .................43
Pedestrian Lighting Only .............................44
TA
B
L
E
O
F
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Special Lighting Districts ............................45
Intersection Lighting .....................................46
Vertical Illumination in Crosswalks ..........47
Bus Stop ..............................................................48
Environmentally Protected Areas ...........48
IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING .......48
Street Lighting Equipment and
Technology ........................................................50
Lighting Improvements
Complexity & Cost ...........................................52
Minimal 1-for-1 Replacements .....................52
Supplemental .....................................................52
Comprehensive .................................................52
PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ...........52
Areas Underserved by
Street Lighting ...................................................53
High Priority Conflict Areas ........................53
1-for-1 Lighting Improvements ...................57
APPENDIX ..........................................................59
A. Glossary of Lighting Terms ........................59
B. Committee Meeting Notes ..........................61
C. Existing Conditions Report
Presentation ......................................................67
D. Nocturnal Infrastructure for
Ecological Health ...........................................89
E. Luminaire Submittal Forms ......................123
5
FIGURE 1: Site Evaluation Map ...................................10
FIGURE 2: Neighborhood
Master Plans Map – 2017 ...........................................20
FIGURE 3: Street Light Density Map .......................24
FIGURE 4: Community Character Map ..................25
FIGURE 5: Appropriate Light Level ..........................29
FIGURE 6: Glare Reduction ...........................................31
FIGURE 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare ..................................32
FIGURE 8: Adaptation ....................................................33
FIGURE 9: Color Rendering ........................................34
FIGURE 10: Color Temperature ..................................35
FIGURE 11: Light Trespass .............................................36
FIGURE 12: Light Pollution ............................................37
FIGURE 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy &
Balance ...............................................................................38
FIGURE 14: Energy ..........................................................39
FIGURE 15: Street Lighting Warrants Matrix .........41
FIGURE 16: Street Lighting Only
Cross Section ..................................................................42
FIGURE 17: Street & Pedestrian
Lighting Cross Section...............................................43
FIGURE 18: Pedestrian Only
Lighting Cross Section...............................................44
FIGURE 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section ..............45
FIGURE 20: Intersection Lighting Plan ..................46
FIGURE 21: Crosswalk Lighting ..................................47
FIGURE 22: School Locations .....................................53
FIGURE 23: Bus Stop Locations ................................54
FIGURE 24: Transit Stations .........................................55
FIGURE 25: Neighborhood Byways .........................56
TABLE OF FIGURES TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Plan Policy Statement Comparison
2006-2020 ........................................................................14
TABLE 2: Street and Sidewalk Lighting
Conditions Council District Locations ..................17
TABLE 3: Street and Sidewalk
Existing Lighting Ratings ............................................19
TABLE 4: Street Lighting Policy
and Implementation Items .........................................21
TABLE 5: Lighting Layout Strategy
By Land Use ....................................................................49
TABLE 6: Recommended Luminaries
By Land Use ......................................................................51
6
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
7
The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan was
developed with the input and guidance of two
committees and reviewed by a Stakeholders
group. The Advisory Committee included
representatives from:
• Each City Council District
• Department of Public Utilities
• Mayor’s Office
The Advisory Committee met six times during
the process to provide guidance on policy
issues:
• Street Lighting Site Tour & Surveys
(November 5, 2018)
• Street Lighting 101 (April 3, 2019)
• Visioning Session (April 25, 2019)
• Council & Mayor’s Office Briefing (May 24,
2019)
• Stakeholder Update (July 30, 2019)
• 50% Progress Update (January 8, 2020)
The Advisory Committee created a list of
lighting concerns and priorities for each district
across the City as well as provided guidance on
the City’s street lighting vision and guideposts.
Notes from their meetings are found in the
appendix.
The second committee was the Technical
Committee with representatives from the
following City departments:
• Police
• Fire
• Sustainability
• Engineering
• Planning
• Urban Forestry
Technical Committee members represented
the interests of their departments in the master
planning process. They also participated in the
street lighting site tour. Technical Committee
input also contributed to the vision and guiding
principles used in the planning process. Notes
from their meetings are found in the appendix.
The current system evaluation and the plan
vision and guideposts were reviewed by
stakeholder groups on July 29-30, 2019 with
representatives from:
• Education
• Business
• Transit/Multi-modal transportation
• Environmental
Stakeholder input is included in this draft plan.
This draft plan is submitted to the City Council
for review, possible revision, and adoption.
Following adoption, the Department of Public
Utilities will hold a series of community
meetings to familiarize residents, developers,
and stakeholders on the policies, standards and
processes included in this plan.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
T
O
T
H
E
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS
8
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
9
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of
existing street lighting conditions and a
master plan to aid in transitioning all Salt
Lake City-owned street lighting from a high
pressure sodium system to an LED system, a
process begun in 2013. In addition, the master
plan identifies methods to improve visibility
and aesthetics while reducing energy and
maintenance through a lighting control system.
The master plan identifies new street lighting
standards for retrofit and new construction.
The goal of this document is to provide Salt
Lake City with a consistent approach for
street and pedestrian lighting that creates
a quality nighttime visual experience. Street
and pedestrian lighting plays a key role in
how people experience the city in which they
live, work, and play. Lighting helps drivers
and pedestrians understand the streetscape
through visual cues and heightened awareness
of their environment. Providing good visibility
with lighting increases comfort levels and
encourages use of public streets and spaces.
The plan identifies a strategy that balances
safety, character, responsibility, and equity
using a series of guideposts for evaluating the
lit environment and the technical elements of a
streetlighting system.
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION
The Advisory and Technical Committees along
with the consulting team surveyed seventeen
locations in the city. In addition, the consulting
team conducted nighttime surveys and
measured the light levels along primary arterial,
minor arterial, collector and local streets.
Survey sites were selected in each Council
District to represent a variety of existing
lighting conditions throughout the city. Based
on the survey and evaluations, the consulting
team created an Existing Conditions Report
(Appendix C) to aid the city in understanding
relationship of visual perception to measured
light levels.
The consulting team categorized each survey
site according to IES standards acceptability
light level, lamp wattage, street type, luminaire
spacing and measured lighting levels. The four
levels of acceptability are:
• Excellent. the survey sites identified as
“Excellent” received the highest scores from
the Advisory and Technical Committees,
indicating excellent visibility, appropriate
light levels, low glare, uniformity and good
color.
• Acceptable. the street meets lighting
standards based on street classification
and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces
categorized as “Acceptable” require only
LED retrofit.
• Moderate. the street does not meet lighting
standards based on street classification
and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces
categorized as “Moderate” require minor
improvements to address relatively small
dark spaces between poles as well as LED
retrofit.
• Poor. the street has very low or no street
lighting. Block faces categorized as “Poor”
require significant investment in new lighting
and electrical infrastructure to meet lighting
standards.
As seen in Figure 1, of the sites surveyed, 17
percent are categorized as Excellent, 35 percent
are Acceptable, 24 percent are Moderate and
24 percent are Poor.
The following policy statements are intended
to guide the approach to addressing identified
needs and gaps in the City’s current street
lighting as well as apply to future changes in
the system.
10
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
POLICY STATEMENTS
Based on the application of planning guideposts
and input of the steering and technical
committees, the master plan implements the
following major policies:
• Street lighting will enhance safety through
the implementation of industry recognized
standards.
• Street lighting standards include allowances
to encourage dimming strategies relating to
pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies
lighting.
• Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive
effects of light at night resulting from light
trespass, light pollution, and glare through
the selection and placement of appropriate
poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels.
• Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance
with neighborhood plans and in accordance
with the typologies in this plan.
• Provide street and pedestrian lighting that
minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species.
• Select fixture types to provide dark skies
protection.
• Implementation based on neighborhood
and community input to determine pole,
fixture type, maximum and minimum light
level, and the implementation of adaptive
dimming applications when appropriate.
The standards and implementation strategies
to achieve Salt Lake City’s major street lighting
policies are included in this plan. Salt Lake City
utilizes IES standards with allowances to respond
to pedestrian, wildlife, and dark skies priorities.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SLC Public Utilities
Excellent Site
Acceptable Site
Moderate Site
Poor Site
1000 North
I-80
Re
d
w
o
o
d
R
o
a
d
South Temple
400 South
900 South
1300 South
1700 South
Sunnyside Avenue
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
D
r
i
v
e
13
0
0
E
a
s
t
70
0
E
a
s
t
St
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
I-
1
5
90
0
W
e
s
t
1
2
Figure 1: Site Evaluation Map
Site # Site Name Street
Classification
Existing
Lighting
Sterling & American
Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent
Riverside Park
& 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable
Redwood Rd.
& South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor
700 South
& Post Street Local / Residential Poor
500 West & Dalton
Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable
Glendale Dr. &
Navajo St.
Collector / Residential
/ Commercial Moderate
J St. & 2nd Ave.Local / Residential Poor
800 East & South
Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent
200 South & Floral St.Arterial / Commercial Excellent
650 South & Main St.Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
700 East & Harrison
Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor
900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
Layton Ave. & West
Temple Local / Residential Moderate
1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable
19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate
1000 East & 2100
South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Funding and prioritization are the key drivers
in implementation of the policies, standards,
and strategies in this plan. Road classification
and adjacent land use are the driving factors
in selection of street lighting type, spacing and
light levels. There are neighborhoods and high
conflict areas of the City that are recommended
for priority implementation.
In all cases, the initial step in implementation
is coordination with the community and
immediate neighborhood to ensure that the
solution identified meets resident, business
owner and user needs.
Implementation recommendations prioritize
the following:
• PRIORITY ONE:
- Neighborhoods currently underserved
for street and/or pedestrian lighting
based on adjacent land uses.
- High conflict areas including:
• School Zones
• Bus Stops
• Transit Stations
• Neighborhood Byways
• PRIORITY TWO:
- Areas with non-compliant existing
streetlighting (luminaire, light source or
pole spacing)
• ONGOING:
- Replacement of lamps with LED
luminaires on regular maintenance
schedule as appropriate
- Replacement of non-compliant street
lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity
- Installation of dimming capability at
neighborhood request
- New development or redevelopment
proposals
STEP ONE:
• Identify high conflict areas in the City
• Review the current lighting map to identify
underserved neighborhoods and high
conflict areas
• Respond to request from community or
neighborhood for lighting change
STEP TWO:
• Contact community and neighborhood
representatives to identify priorities and
review options according to the matrix
• Identify neighborhood-preferred option
according to the matrix
STEP THREE:
• Estimate cost of preferred option
• Seek funding approval
STEP FOUR:
• Design, schedule and implement preferred
option
12
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
13
SY
S
T
E
M
B
A
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
,
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
Salt Lake City was the fifth city in the United
States to have electric lights. By 1887,
streetlights were operating on Main Street and
along First and Second South Streets. The City’s
first systematic plan for locating streetlights
was adopted in 1908. The most recent previous
update to Salt Lake City’s streetlighting plan
was completed in 2006 when the system was
operated and maintained by the Salt Lake
City Transportation Department within the
Community Development Department.
In 2012 responsibility for streetlight policy,
operations and maintenance was transferred
to the Street Lights Department within the
Department of Public Utilities. This move
coincided with the implementation of a monthly
user included in business and residential
public utility bills along with drinking water,
wastewater, stormwater and sanitation services.
The Department manages and maintains
more than 15,500 streetlights in Salt Lake
City and has overseen the conversion of the
City’s inventory to high-energy efficiency LED
lamps with a target completion date of 2021.
The Department placed the conversion to LED
streetlights on hold in 2018 to allow this Street
Lighting Master Plan to guide the conversion of
the remaining streetlights.
As part of the Street Light Master Plan
update, the current system was reviewed and
recommendations for changes to the system
and updates to Salt Lake City’s streetlighting
policies were developed. In addition, guidance
for installation of new lighting in newly
developed areas as well as changes to existing
areas is included in Volume 2 - Technical
Guidance and Implementation Plan.
SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY
14
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
SY
S
T
E
M
B
A
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
,
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
The 2012 LED conversion project implements
the 2006 Master Plan policy statements. In the
interim there have been lighting technology
advances, revisions in standards and a new
awareness of the impact of exterior lighting
on human and environmental health as well
as attention to dark skies initiatives. This plan
updates Salt Lake City’s policies and standards
to reflect these advances and changes.
Table 1 provides a comparison of the 2006 Street
Lighting Master Plan policy statements and
revisions and additions to those policy statements
recommended in this update to the Plan.
TABLE 1 - PLAN POLICY STATEMENT COMPARISON 2006 TO 2020
2006 PLAN POLICY STATEMENT 2020 PLAN PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED
POLICY REVISIONS/ADDITIONS
Salt Lake City lighting standards are based on IES
recommendations
Revise policy: Salt Lake City lighting standards are
based on IES recommendations with allowances
for adaptive standards that encourage dimming
strategies relating to pedestrian activity, community
engagement, wildlife and dark skies lighting.
Lighting level and design will be upgraded to
current standards as lights are replaced and new
lights are installed
No Change
All newly installed utility lines shall be underground No Change
When practical installation of underground
conduit for utility lines shall be included in road
reconstruction projects
No Change
Only dedicated publicly owned streets are eligible
for street lighting funded by the City
No Change (Possible future revision for public
alleyways. Discussion with transportation and
planning.)
Placement of street light poles shall meet safety
standards including lateral clearance requirements No Change
Energy efficient lights shall be used for new and
replacement lighting.
Revise policy to balance energy efficiency with
human/environmental health. Process to identify
areas better suited to amber LEDs primarily for
open space and wildlife.
All new streetlights must meet, at a minimum,
the “dark sky semi-cutoff” standard with the
exception that all new “shoe box” or “cobra head”
style streetlights must meet the “dark sky cutoff”
standard.
Provide street and pedestrian lighting that reduces
the obtrusive effects of light at night, including
light trespass that intrudes on private property,
light pollution to preserve dark skies, and glare that
reduces visibility and annoys drivers, pedestrians
and residents.
15
SY
S
T
E
M
B
A
C
K
G
R
O
U
N
D
,
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
2006 PLAN POLICY STATEMENT 2020 PLAN PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED
POLICY REVISIONS/ADDITIONS
Lighting appropriate for conditions shall insure
uniform and safe lighting on major streets and
commercial district streets
No change to the policy. Standards relating to
decorative poles and fixtures to be updated.
Standards relating to private lighting standards in
the Northwest Quadrant to be developed.
Public input may be sought regarding fixture and
pole type in commercial areas
Additional public input may be sought to determine
maximum and minimum light levels on residential
collector and local streets for adaptive dimming
application.
Residential neighborhoods may adopt a decorative
street light fixture and pole from the approved
list on non-major streets in accordance with a
neighborhood master plan
No Change
All new and replacement lighting shall be from the
approved list developed by the City Transportation
Engineer
No change to the policy (except departmental
designation.) Possible changes to the approved list.
It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation
Department to support the use of Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design principles in the
design and operation of street lighting within Salt
Lake City.
No Change (except departmental designation)
It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation
Department to support the use of banners on street
light poles to enhance a sense of community and
contribute to traffic calming.
No Change (except departmental designation)
It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation
Department to coordinate the location of new street
lights with the Salt Lake City Forester and, in turn,
coordinate on the planting of new trees such that
both are compatible in providing desired benefits
to the neighborhood.
No Change (except departmental designation)
Provide street and pedestrian lighting that
minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species.
Pedestrian scale lights (typically 12’ to 15’ mounting
height) are on any streets where streetlighting
alone does not effectively illuminate the sidewalk
due to shadowing from trees, or the location of
the sidewalk in relation to the street. Pedestrian
scale lights on local residential streets to minimize
light trespass and create more pedestrian friendly
streets, and in commercial areas to encourage
pedestrian usage.
16
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
CU
R
R
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
2006 STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN
Salt Lake City last published a Street Lighting
Master Plan in 2006. While most of the lighting
principles and goals from 2006 are continued
in this master plan, technical advancements in
lighting equipment have allowed improvements
to be made in the control and application of
light. The 2006 Master Plan pushed the lighting
in the city to be safer and more pedestrian
friendly while minimizing light pollution
and light trespass. It encouraged the use of
decorative luminaires to match the character
of the neighborhood or enhance downtown
commercial districts. These principles of
safety and character established in 2006
are guideposts to this Master Plan and will
be continued in the lighting strategies and
principles throughout the City. The new Master
Plan is striving to create a more pedestrian
centric city where auto-alternate solutions can
be safer and more widely used. The new plan is
still encouraging the use of decorative luminaire
options in certain areas throughout the city but
is requiring enhanced control of light to further
minimize light pollution and light trespass.
Since 2006 advances in LED technology have
allowed for significant increases in control of
light distribution and color. The new Master
Plan takes advantage of these advances to
recommend the best lighting solutions for each
block based on adjacent land use, pedestrian
volume, and environmentally sensitive areas.
The new plan sets luminaire criteria for lumen
output, distribution, and color temperature
to ensure appropriate and effective lighting
that aims to reduce light pollution and light
trespass. Additionally, this master plan provides
guidance on lighting controls to help the City
establish a citywide wireless control network
that will assist in more efficient management
and control of streetlights.
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Certain areas within the City have decorative
lighting as a replacement or supplement
to the baseline lighting as part of a Special
Improvement District. In these residential or
commercial areas, the property managers agree
to pay the capital costs for new or replacement
lighting plus 75% of the ongoing operating
and maintenance costs. Special Improvement
Districts include the Cactus Poles in the
downtown commercial area and the pedestrian
post top lights in the Rose Park Neighborhood.
PRIVATE LIGHTING PROGRAM
In 1995 Salt Lake City started the Private
Lighting program, allowing residents to
purchase, install and maintain streetlights on
their blocks. The program is designed to allow
the residents of Salt Lake to choose the poles
and luminaires that are installed on their block
while still ensuring sufficient lighting in the
neighborhood. Each block is required to have
at least six lights, including at least one at each
intersection. Lights are owned by the residents
and are connected to home of the owner with
underground wiring. Residents can apply for
a one-time grant from the city to help offset
costs. Depending on funding, the grant can be
up to $5,000 per block, but must be matched
by the neighborhood, dollar for dollar. The City
must approve all lighting equipment and will
inspect all installations.
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION
17
CU
R
R
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS
PROCESS
The Advisory and Technical Committees surveyed seventeen sites in different areas of the city.
The sites were selected based on street type, arterial, collector, or residential, and on their
surrounding environments in the city, industrial, commercial, transit or residential. The diversity of
the sites provide an understanding of the lighting and environmental conditions found in different
neighborhoods and along different transportation corridors throughout the city. Only streets,
sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the Public Right of Way were evaluated. Privately owned lighting
was not included. The survey asked participants about the street and sidewalk lighting conditions
at each of the following seventeen sites.
TABLE 2: STREET AND SIDEWALK LIGHTING CONDITIONS COUNCIL DISTRICT LOCATIONS
LOCATION CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL DISTRICT
Sterling Drive & American
Beauty Drive
Local/Residential 1
700 North & Riverside Park Arterial/Park 1
Redwood Road & South Temple Collector/Industrial 1 & 2 Boundary
700 South & Post Street Local/Residential 2
900 West & Dalton Avenue Arterial/Residential 2
Glendale Drive & Navajo St.Collector/Residential/
Commercial
2
J St. & 1st Avenue Local/Residential 3
800 East South Temple Arterial/Commercial 3 & 4 Boundary
200 South Floral Street Arterial/Commercial 4
650 South Main Street Arterial/Commercial 4
700 East Harrison Avenue Arterial/Residential 5
900 South & 900 East Arterial/Commercial 5
Layton Ave. & West Temple Local/Residential 5
1500 East & Yale Avenue Collector/Residential 6
1900 East & Sunnyside Arterial/Residential/Commercial 6
1400 East & Redondo Local/Residential 7
1000 East & 2100 South Arterial/Commercial 7
The survey included the following statements to which participants indicated their level of
agreement by ranking their response between Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree.
• It would be safe to walk here alone during daylight hours.
• It would be safe to walk here alone during darkness hours.
• The light is uneven (patchy).
• The light sources are glaring.
• The lighting is poorly matched to the neighborhood.
18
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
CU
R
R
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
To supplement survey responses, High Dynamic
Range photographs were taken and horizontal
and vertical illuminance light measurements
recorded for the sidewalks and luminance
measurements taken along the roadway at
each site. The measurements were compared to
recommended levels in the IES Recommended
Practice for Roadway Lighting (RP-8-18).
Based on survey results, HDR photographic
evidence and light measurements, the
consulting team rated lighting at each site as
Excellent, Acceptable, Moderate or Poor.
Excellent rated lighting is sufficient and
appropriate on the roadway, provides adequate
vertical illumination to allow for object detection
and facial recognition. Excellent lighting is
relatively uniform, free of direct glare and
properly illuminates the roadway and sidewalk.
Acceptable rated lighting is comfortable. In
some cases, such as residential areas, the light
level might be lower than the IES Recommended
Practice but the lack of glare and shadowing
from surrounding landscaping, along with
some surrounding surface brightness, creates
a comfortable nighttime environment without
light trespass.
Moderate rated lighting does not provide enough
light on the roadway or on the sidewalk. The color
of the light may be inconsistent, and the presence
of glare may result in an uncomfortable space.
Some of these sites were shadowed due to trees,
and lighting was not appropriately spaced.
Poor rated lighting occurs when the luminaires
are spaced too far apart to provide adequate light
levels and uniformity or there are no luminaires on
the street at all. These sites included residential
areas without sufficient light, industrial sites and
an arterial road where lights were malfunctioning.
Of the 17 sites evaluated, three were excellent.
Of the excellent sites one is a local residential
street and two are arterial commercial streets.
Six sites were ranked good. Of the good sites
five are arterials, one adjacent to a park, one
in a residential area, three in commercial areas,
and one is a collector in a residential area. Four
sites were moderate. Of the moderate sites two
are local residential streets, one is a collector in a
residential/commercial area, and one is an arterial
in a residential/commercial area. Four sites were
rated poor. Of the poor sites one is a collector in
an industrial area, two are local residential areas
and one is an arterial residential area.
19
CU
R
R
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
Table 3: Street and Sidewalk Existing Lighting Ratings
SITE #CLASSIFICATION EXISTING LIGHTING RATING
1 Sterling Drive & American
Beauty Drive
Local/Residential Excellent
2 700 North & Riverside Park Arterial/Park Acceptable
3 Redwood Road & South Temple Collector/Industrial Poor
4 700 South & Post Street Local/Residential Poor
5 900 West & Dalton Avenue Arterial/Residential Acceptable
6 Glendale Drive & Navajo St.Collector/Residential/ Commercial Moderate
7 J St. & 1st Avenue Local/Residential Poor
8 800 East South Temple Arterial/Commercial Excellent
9 200 South Floral Street Arterial/Commercial Excellent
10 650 South Main Street Arterial/Commercial Acceptable
11 700 East Harrison Avenue Arterial/Residential Poor
12 900 South & 900 East Arterial/Commercial Acceptable
13 Layton Ave. & West Temple Local/Residential Moderate
14 1500 East & Yale Avenue Collector/Residential Acceptable
15 1900 East & Sunnyside Arterial/Residential/Commercial Moderate
16 1400 East & Redondo Local/Residential Moderate
17 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial/Commercial Acceptable
The ratings provide an understanding of the
variety of nighttime environments in different
areas of the city and guided the development of
improvement options. Each option focuses on
improving light levels and uniformity, reducing
glare, and enhancing wayfinding.
The full report including site specific metrics can
be found in Appendix C.
CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE
PLAN SALT LAKE
In Plan Salt Lake adopted in 2015 the community
identified 13 guiding principles. Although not
always specifically mentioned, high quality street
lighting can contribute to achievement of most of
the guiding principles.
Six of the principles can be directly affected
through the implementation of quality street
lighting:
1/Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment,
opportunity for social interaction, and services
needed for the wellbeing of the community
therein.
4/A transportation and mobility network
that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable,
and sustainable, providing real choices and
connecting people with places.
6/Minimize our impact on the natural environment.
7/Protecting the natural environment while
providing access and opportunities to recreate
and enjoy nature.
20
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
CU
R
R
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
8/A beautiful city that is people focused.
13/A local government that is collaborative,
responsive, and transparent.
Plan Salt Lake includes specific initiatives to that
mention street lighting to achieve the Guiding
Principles. These include “Incorporate pedestrian
oriented elements, including street trees,
pedestrian scale lighting, signage, and embedded
art, into our rights-of-way and transportation
networks” as an initiative to create a safe
mobility network. This is a critical initiative to
achieve several other initiatives, including overall
connectivity and safety in the public realm. Plan
Salt Lake also includes an initiative to “promote
and expand the city’s street lighting program
throughout the City” as part of the beautiful city
Guiding Principle. This is also a critical initiative
to achieve several other initiatives, including
reinforcing and preserving neighborhood and
district character and providing a strong sense of
place.
In addition, implementation of this Street Lighting
Master Plan to identify and address current
gaps in service and upgrade overall lighting will
contribute to the fulfillment of several other of
the Guiding Principles.
NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLANS
Salt Lake City has completed eleven neighborhood
master plans for the areas of the City represented
on the map in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Neighborhood Master Plans Map - 2017
21
CU
R
R
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
The master plans date from the 1980s through 2017 with amendments and updates. Street lighting is
mentioned in many of them as a tool to enhance community character and identify the City’s special
lighting district program as a tool for implementation. Several of the plans also identify the installation
of pedestrian level lighting as a community enhancement strategy.
Some plans identified specific policies and implementation measures relating to street lighting as
identified in the table below:
TABLE 4: STREET LIGHTING POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS
COMMUNITY ADOPTION GOAL OR POLICY STATEMENT ACTION OR
IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS
Avenues 1987 None • Streetscape “demonstration project”
to illustrate use of streetscape,
including street lighting, to improve the
neighborhood.
Capitol Hill 1999
Amended
2001
• Coordinate any new
street lighting program in
designated historic districts
with the Historic Landmark
Commission to ensure the
design of the street lights are
compatible with the historic
character and comply with the
historic district regulations.
• Provide a consistent design
theme and increase the
amount of street lighting on
300 West and 400 West.
• Analyze the feasibility and demand for
increasing the amount of street lighting
in areas of the Capitol Hill Community
where needed and determine funding
sources.
• Develop and implement a consistent
lighting and street furniture theme for
the Capitol Hill neighborhood (north of
North Temple).
Central 2002
Amended
2006
• Relate right-of-way designs to
land use patterns.
• Ensure that public streets are
maintained and improved
throughout the Central
Community
• Encourage where appropriate rights-
of-way that have landscaped street
medians, landscaped park strips, street
trees, on-street parking, pedestrian
lighting, and furnishings such as major
arterials.
• Provide consistent neighborhood
design themes for street lighting and
ensure that street lighting is provided
at a pedestrian scale. Coordinate street
lighting in designated historic districts
with the Historic Landmark Commission
to ensure that compatible design and
placement patterns are met.
22
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
CU
R
R
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
Downtown 2016 • Make downtown a unique
destination for visitors.
• A complete pedestrian
network that makes walking
downtown safe, convenient
and comfortable.
• A public realm that is looked
after 24/7.
• A downtown known for its
well-maintained public realm.
• Maintain and refresh existing policies
regarding sidewalk paving materials and
street lighting in districts where these
items have already been established
in this plan or other plans such as the
Street Lighting Master Plan.
• Address pedestrian safety and comfort
issues with regularly planted trees,
shortened crossing distances, tighter
curb radii, hawk or other pedestrian-
activated signals, pedestrian lighting,
and regularly spaced benches and
seating.
• Continue implementation of pedestrian
lighting throughout downtown.
• Maintain the city improvements such as
street lights, seating, and paving.
Westside 2014 • Create a more conducive
environment for
redevelopment at
neighborhood nodes.
• Street lighting should be emphasized
at intersections and be scaled to the
pedestrian level.
23
CU
R
R
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
East Bench 2017 • Business Districts that
Promote Neighborhood
Identity
• Improve the Street Rights-of-
way to Create Beautiful and
Safe Gateway Corridors
• Dark Sky Friendly Lighting
• Building features, such as height,
placement and materials, as well as
street improvements such as signage,
landscaping, lighting, paving materials,
and pedestrian crossings activate the
individual business districts, create a
distinct identity, create a sense of place,
and help create a more pleasant auto-
pedestrian interface.
• Establishing a gateway should not stop
at creating an entrance feature at the
beginning of the street, but should carry
through the entire length of the corridor
with consistent design treatment, such
as street lighting, street furniture, and
pavement treatments that relate to the
character of each gateway.
• The East Bench is the interface between
the natural and urban environment. As
such the built environment within the
community should respect the natural
surroundings. One particular aspect
of development that can impact both
the natural and human environment
is lighting. In an effort to minimize
disruption to wildlife, impacts on
adjacent property, and the community’s
enjoyment of the night sky, lighting
should:
- Only be on when needed;
- Only light the area that needs it;
- Be no brighter than necessary;
- Minimize blue light emissions; and
- Be fully shielded and pointing
downward.
Northwest 1990 None None
Northwest
Quadrant
2016 • Promote the design of
transportation corridors that
support the natural landscape
• North of I-80, provide a
common Northwest Quadrant
design theme for the public
infrastructure, such as native
landscaping, lighting, bridge
design, signs, etc.
• Use appropriate but minimal levels
of lighting to keep sites darker near
Natural Areas
- Direct lights down and away from
natural habitats.
- Avoid tall street lights that may
negatively impact wildlife habitat.
- Use the minimum number of street
lights necessary for safety.
- Along trails, use lights that only light
the trail and not wildlife habitat.
• Street lighting should use poles and
fixtures that are compatible with the
natural environment.
24
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
CU
R
R
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
It’s clear from Salt Lake City’s adopted policy statements and implementation priorities in both
citywide and community-level plans that pedestrian level street lighting is an important element for
creating a sense of safety and community.
LIGHTING LEVELS & GAPS
Implementation of Salt Lake City’s current lighting policy, standards, and approach is illustrated in the
streetlight density map in Figure 3.
Key
Lighting Strategies Heat Map
SLC Boundary
Streetlights
Dense
Sparse
Each streetlight in the City is represented as a white dot on the map. The density of lighting generated
is represented from gray and blue in the lowest light density areas to yellow in the highest light density
areas. Not surprisingly, the highest density lighting occurs in Salt Lake’s commercial areas including
downtown and the Sugar House business district and along arterials and other major highways.
Lowest light density occurs in residential neighborhoods, parks, and industrial areas. Non-Salt Lake
City Public Utilities lighting, including the interstate highways, at the University of Utah and at the Salt
Lake International Airport, is not represented.
Figure 3: Street Light Density Map
25
CU
R
R
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
EVALUATION BY COMMUNITY / DISTRICT
The approach to recommended street lighting improvements in this plan is influenced and informed
by the street classification, adjacent land use, pedestrian levels, and specific situations found in each
area of the City.
Because past policies focused on street lighting for safety on the City’s roads, most areas of the
city have lighting in compliance with IES and APWA road safety standards. As seen in the summary
adopted master plan goals and implementation measures, many neighborhoods in the city would like
to see additional pedestrian level lighting. Figure 4 is a map of the existing character districts in the
City.
Sugar House
Wasatch
Hollow
Liberty Wells
Glendale
Central
City/Liberty
Wells
Yalecrest
Ballpark
Central City
DowntownPoplar Grove
Fairpark
Rose Park Capitol Hill
Westpointe
Greater
Avenues
SL International
Airport
East
Liberty
Wells
East
Central/Yalecrest
East Central
East
Central/East
Liberty Park
Downtown/
Central 9th
Ballpark/Central
9th
East
Central/University
Gardens
Federal
Heights/Greater
Avenues
Residents, developers, and other interested parties can identify existing lighting location and type
using the interactive map on the city’s website. The map provides the following information:
• Location
• Pole type
• Luminaire type
• Light source
Figure 4: Community Character Map
26
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
27
PLAN GUIDEPOSTS
PL
A
N
G
U
I
D
E
P
O
S
T
The Advisory and Technical Committees
developed a series of guideposts as a basis
of evaluating street and pedestrian lighting
characteristics.
The four guideposts:
• Safety
• Character
• Responsibility
• Equity
Lighting improvement strategies and
characteristics were evaluated based on
these guideposts. The safety, character and
responsibility guideposts depend on the district
in which the lighting is located and adjacent
land uses. The equity guidepost underpins
the entire plan and implementation strategy
to encourage lighting improvements based on
community need. The guideposts are intended
to result in design decisions that contribute to
safe and comfortable nighttime environments.
The application of the guideposts and the
design decisions they affect contribute to
identifying lighting designs and approaches
that best fit the needs of each project.
SAFETY
Appropriate street and pedestrian lighting
improves safety by improving visibility for
drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. Effective
visibility in the nighttime environment depends
more on the quality of light than the quantity.
Higher light levels do not always result in better
visibility. The qualities of light that achieve
excellent visibility and therefore improve safety
are:
• Appropriate Light Level
• Reduced Glare
• Uniformity vs. Contrast
• Adaptation
• Color
CHARACTER
Salt Lake City’s existing street and pedestrian
lighting is diverse with a variety of historic
and industrial cobra-head style lights. Special
Districts use street lighting to create distinct
character and enhance the unique identity
of the district. The characteristics of street
and pedestrian lighting that can support and
enhance the character of an area include:
• Scale: Street Scale, Pedestrian Scale
• Style: Luminaires, Mounting Brackets, Poles,
Pole Bases, Additional Amenities
• Appropriate Light Level
• Glare
• Color: Finish Color, and Color of Light Source
RESPONSIBILITY
Responsible implementation of street lighting
includes minimizing potential negative effects
of light intensity and spectrum on human and
ecological health balanced with the responsible
use of public funds. This is a complex challenge
that includes many issues that sometimes
require balancing opposing opinions and
perspectives. This Master Plan references the
28
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
latest research in the effects of light intensity
and spectrum on visibility and human and
ecological health in exterior nighttime
environments. To implement the Responsibility
guidepost the following issues are considered
and balanced:
• Light Trespass
• Light Pollution
• Health & Wellbeing
• Impacts on Wildlife
• Energy Use
• Cost
• Maintenance
EQUITY
The implementation of this Street Lighting
Master Plan is intended to address issues
related to street lighting in the most equitable
way possible. The prioritization of street
lighting funding will be an ongoing process
within annual budget allocations. Recognizing
that there are differing opinions throughout the
City about the balance between the Guideposts
and how to implement the Lighting Strategies
in this master plan, particularly in residential
neighborhoods, it is important that there is
ongoing public engagement to determine the
appropriate lighting strategies within each
neighborhood. While some lighting strategies
will be optional, there are some minimum
requirements for lighting improvements to
address safety needs in a consistent way
throughout the Salt Lake City.
• Ongoing Public Engagement
• Prioritizing Areas Currently Underserved by
Street Lighting
29
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW
SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
The natural daily cycle of light and dark is
directly linked to the healthy sleep/wake cycles,
also known as circadian rhythm. Light is the
primary stimulus that triggers the suppression
of melatonin in humans. Darkness at night is
needed to allow the production of melatonin
for healthy and complete sleep. Exposure to
blue spectrum light after sunset can delay the
nighttime production of melatonin. Controlling
glare and light trespass and using light sources
with warmer color reduces the exposure to blue
spectrum content of LED for street, pedestrian,
and area lighting. Warmer colors encourage
healthy melatonin and sleep patterns for
residents. It is also important to note that
the current status of research related to light
exposure at night and human health is still
ongoing. According to the Lighting Research
Center1 at typical street lighting levels, per IES
RP-8-18, using LED light sources are “below the
threshold for suppressing nocturnal melatonin
(in humans) by light at night following a
30-minute exposure”.
WILDLIFE IMPACTS
Salt Lake City contains important wildlife
habitat, from the foothills in the east to the
open shore lands of the Great Salt Lake.
Additional wildlife habitat is found along the
north-south route of the Jordan River and
along the four urban creeks extending west
and south out of the foothills. Light at night
can disrupt these wildlife habitats. Migratory
species pass through the city itself, with
nocturnally migratory birds attracted to the
city lights. Controlling light pollution and light
trespass, using only necessary lighting levels,
and choosing an appropriate spectrum (color)
of light for each area can protect these natural
resources. Dimming lights during seasonal bird
migrations is another wildlife-friendly approach.
LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS
Each of the following characteristics represent
considerations and decisions to be made in
implementing street lighting in the various
areas and neighborhoods of the city. Each
characteristic is evaluated based on each of
the guideposts. When one or more of the
guideposts converge and coalesce around the
characteristic, synergy is created. When the
guideposts diverge decisions must be made to
balance competing needs.
Each characteristic is identified and described
then evaluated based on four Guideposts. A
comparative example of the characteristic is
also included to enhance understanding of the
concept.
APPROPRIATE LIGHT LEVELS
Appropriate light levels vary based on roadway
classification, adjacent land use, pedestrian
activity, and proximity to open space and wildlife
habitat. The recommendations in the plan apply
adaptive lighting criteria to the Illuminating
Engineering Society’s Recommended Practice
for Street and Roadway Lighting (IES RP-8-18)
to allow for dimming during reduced pedestrian
activity and the use of broad spectrum, white
light sources, such as LED.
Character, Safety and Equity converge around moderate
light levels.
• Using appropriate amounts of light increases
nighttime visibility creating a safer and more
comfortable environment.
Figure 5: Appropriate Light Level
1 Rea MS, Smith A, Bierman A, Figueiro MG. 2012. The potential of outdoor lighting for stimulating the
human circadian system. Alliance for Solid-State Illumination Systems and Technologies (ASSIST)
30
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
• The City is working to upgrade lighting to appropriate light levels based on locations with the
greatest need.
Appropriate light levels are balanced with environmental responsibility.
• In environmentally sensitive areas, lower light levels are desired. The City will be installing more
environmentally friendly luminaires with a lower CCT and better glare control
Appropriate Light Levels: This photo demonstrates appropriate light levels for a commercial area with medi-
um to high pedestrian usage, where moderate light levels provide excellent visibility through out the public
streets and sidewalks.
31
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
GLARE REDUCTION
Glare is caused by excessive or undesirable
light entering the eye from a bright light source.
Glare can result in discomfort, annoyance, and
decreased visibility. There is the potential for
direct glare when a light source is in direct view.
The presence of direct glare depends on the
intensity of the light source and contrast with
the surrounding environment. With direct glare,
the eye has a harder time seeing contrast and
details. A lighting system designed solely on
lighting levels aim more light at higher viewing
angles, thus producing more potential for glare.
Direct glare can be minimized with careful
equipment selection as well as placement.
Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge
around reducing glare levels as it leads to more effective
lighting and safer, more comfortable environments.
Reducing glare:
• Improves visibility on the roadways
• Creates a more enjoyable nighttime
environment
• Reduces sky glow and light trespass,
minimizing the obtrusive effects of light.
Figure 6: Glare Reduction
Lights that create glare can result in a range
of negative effects for drivers, pedestrians
and residents. From annoyance to reduced
visibility, and may generate complaints from
residents.
Lights with low glare provide more comfortable
streets and public spaces, providing lights,
where it is needed without annoying nearby
residents.
32
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
UNIFORMITY VS. CONTRAST
Lighting uniformity refers to the evenness
of light. Our eyes are continually adapting to
the brightest object in our field of view. Any
object lighted to 1/10 the level of the immediate
surroundings appears noticeably darker. For
roadway lighting, good uniformity indicates
evenly lighted pavement. However, good
visibility requires the contrast of an object
against the background. An environment
with perfectly uniform lighting provides
low contrast, which can reduce visibility. To
create enough contrast for good visibility,
there should be a balance between uniform
perception and having enough contrast to
improve visual detection of objects on the road.
Uniformity criteria are typically described as
ratios of maximum to minimum and average to
minimum luminance or Illuminance. Contrast is
the difference between two adjacent luminance
values. High contrast is necessary for good
visibility. Differences in color also produce a
visible contrast, even when both objects have
similar luminance values, which support the
benefits of using higher color rendering sources,
as discussed below in the Color Rendering and
Nighttime Visibility section.
Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge
around semi-uniform medium contrast lighting. This
provides the proper balance of uniformity and contrast
and is essential to quality lighting design.
• Safety on the roadway is improved when
street lighting properly strikes this balance,
and subtle contrast can add character to an
area with a unique lighting design.
• When the proper balance of uniformity and
contrast is achieved, the lighting is more
effective at lower light levels reducing over
lighting and light pollution.
Figure 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare
Color Contrast: In the photos above, the black-
and-white image shows that the luminance of
the flower and background are very similar. Only
when the color is rendered does the color con-
trast of the yellow flower make it highly visible
next to its background. This demonstrates why
street lighting with good color rendering can im-
prove visibility of objects in a street, even at the
same, or lower light levels. Further study on the
effects of color contrast in street lighting appli-
cations is needed to understand the improved
visibility of broad spectrum light sources at light
levels below current IES RP-8-18 recommenda-
tions.2
2 Clanton N, Gibbons R, Garcia J, Mutmansky M. 2014. Seattle LED Adaptive Lighting Study. Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance Report #E14-286
33
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
ADAPTATION
Adaptation refers to the eye’s ability to adjust
between changes in luminance. Our eye will
automatically adjust to the brightest object in
our field of view. Glare from headlights or fixed
lighting can affect one’s ability to adapt to lower
surface luminance. This is especially true as one
ages. Another form of adaptation occurs when
driving from a brightly lighted area to a non-
lighted section of roadway. Here, the lighted
area should slowly transition to darker to allow
adaptation time. Off roadway brightness, such
as driving past a brightly lighted gas station
or LED sign, can also cause adaptation issues.
While this Master Plan does not directly address
lighting on private property, it is intended to
set an example for future lighting guidelines
that could apply these lighting strategies to all
exterior lighting in Salt Lake City.
Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge
around low to medium levels of visual adaptation to
improve visibility when transitioning from private parking
lots and property into public streets.
• When street lighting and adjacent private
lighting is designed to appropriate light
levels, the eye can maintain a proper degree
of adaptation. When the eye is adapted
to the existing light, it is more effective at
detecting and identifying objects, increasing
safety.
Figure 8: Adaptation
The privately owned lighting at this auto dealership
are too bright and lack proper shielding creating
high adaptation issues transitioning from the sales
lot to the street.
When roadways are illuminated to appropriate
light levels with good control of light, the eye is
able to adapt, increasing visibility and safety on the
streets.
34
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
COLOR RENDERING AND NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY
The Color Rendering Index (CRI) is the
standard metric used to evaluate how well a
light source renders the true color of an object.
CRI is measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with
100 representing how an object would look
under a reference incandescent light source.
The higher the number, the better the color
rendering capacity. Traditional High-Pressure
Sodium (“HPS”) streetlights have a very low CRI
of approximately 30, making color detection
difficult. Today’s standard LED streetlights are
not only significantly more energy efficient,
they also have a much higher CRI, typically 65 or
higher, increasing color detection, visual acuity,
and overall effectiveness of the streetlights.
LED lighting technology advancements
allow streetlights to be tuned to a specific
correlated color temperature (“CCT”) without
drastically reducing the CRI. This technology
can be used to reduce the color temperature
in environmentally sensitive areas without
significantly reducing the CRI, preserving the
effectiveness of the lighting system.
LED’s emit light across the visual spectrum,
considered white light, which appears brighter
at night. When traditional HPS lights are
replaced with LED’s similar light levels often
appear to be much brighter with LED lights.
Residents may find the light to be obtrusive.
When upgrading to LEDs in residential areas,
it is essential to have a dimming system to
respond to complaints from residents.
Safety and character converge around using higher CRI
of 65 or higher. Eliminating blue spectrum light with
lower CRI is responsible in areas with critical wildlife
habitat.
• Using a higher CRI improves safety by
increasing visual acuity and object detection,
making the roads safer or vehicles and
pedestrians.
• Higher CRI improves character in the area by
enhancing colors of landscaping and objects
within the streetscape.
• Within or adjacent to critical wildlife areas a
luminaire with a lower CRI and CCT should
be used to responsibly illuminate the area
while also minimizing impacts on wildlife.
This car is illuminated by two different light sources.
On the left, an LED light, with high color rendering,
clearly reveals the color and details of the car. On
the right, a low pressure sodium light, with low color
rendering, distorts the color of the car and details of
the vehicle are not clear.
Figure 9: Color Rendering
35
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
COLOR TEMPERATURE AND NIGHTTIME
VISIBILITY
Appropriate Correlated Color Temperature
(CCT) of streetlights is largely depends on the
location of the lights within the city. Salt Lake
City consists of diverse land uses, ranging from
high density urban areas to environmentally
sensitive lowlands and foothills. Street type and
adjacent land use determine the appropriate
color of light.
There are opposing effects on how the
spectrum of light at night affects visibility for
Safety and human and environmental health for
Responsibility. Limiting the CCT of light sources
for the City to a maximum of 3000K, and then
adjusting to warmer CCT in residential and
wildlife habitats provides a balance between
the guideposts. CCT should vary throughout
the City to achieve comfortable, safe and
responsible street and pedestrian lighting
throughout the City.
• High Density Urban Areas – 3000K CCT (max).
Lighting in higher density urban areas should
prioritize color rendering for color contrast
and object detection on the roadway. This
increases visibility for drivers and pedestrians.
In urban areas light should have a CCT of
3000K. This CCT is considered a warm white
light source, which improves visibility at night,
but also minimizes the amount of light in the
spectrum that can cause disruptions to the
surrounding environment as well as human
health. The American Medical Association
and International Dark Sky Association both
recommend a maximum CCT of 3000K.
• Residential Areas – 2700K CCT (max).
Visual acuity from white light sources is
needed for pedestrian safety, but residents
typically prefer a warmer color temperature
in their neighborhood. The recommended
color temperature for residential local and
collector streets is 2700K. On arterial streets
in residential areas, 3000K CCT should be
used due to increased speeds. This range
will provide the appropriate amount of white
light to preserve object detection but will also
allow a warmer, more comfortable color of
light in neighborhoods.
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas – 2200K
CCT (max). There are varying types of
environmentally sensitive areas within and
along the perimeter of the city. Where streets
pass through or adjacent to environmentally
sensitive areas, very warm, phosphor-
converted amber light sources with CCT of
2200K or lower, should minimize impacts
of light on plants and animals in the area.
Additional shielding of both back light and
front light may also be required to further
reduce light trespass into these sensitive
areas.
Figure 10: Color Temperature
In the distance, the warm amber glow of low CCT
(1800K) high pressure sodium street lights is shown
in comparison to higher CCT (4000K) LED street
lights in the foreground.
36
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
LIGHT TRESPASS
Light trespass is defined as a stray light that
crosses a property boundary. The most obtrusive
form of light trespass is often caused by an
excessively bright luminaire that is unshielded
and distributes light into adjacent property.
Uncontrolled, non-shielded light sources are
usually the cause of light trespass. However,
even a controlled, fully shielded luminaire may
cause light trespass if not properly located
or oriented. In cases where the location of a
light standard cannot be changed, additional
shielding may be necessary to prevent light
trespass. Although designers should always
strive to minimize light trespass, sometimes
higher levels may be acceptable in downtown,
commercial, and area adjacent to civic land
uses.
The following strategies will identify acceptable levels
of light trespass to balance the design guideposts.
• When designing in residential areas and
environmentally sensitive areas, minimizing
light trespass should be the highest priority.
• When designing in downtown commercial
or retail environments, pedestrian safety
should prioritize increasing vertical light
levels in crosswalks.
• The character of a certain light may result in
high levels of light trespass, but designers
should strive to find luminaires that meet the
character of the area while still maintaining
zero uplight and minimizing light at angles
known to be obtrusive.
A pedestrian light with inappropriate light
distribution and poor shielding creates a
significant amount of light trespass on a nearby
residence.
Figure 11: Light Trespass
A well shielded street light with appropriate
light distribution provides adequate light for
the street and sidewalk with minimal light spill
beyond the sidewalk.
37
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
LIGHT POLLUTION
Light pollution and sky glow are caused by
light aimed directly up into the sky and by
light reflected from the ground or objects.
Any additional light will add to light pollution.
However, it is the direct uplight component
that does not contribute to useful street level
visibility, and is the most objectionable form
of pollution. Unshielded luminaires are major
contributors to sky glow. Over lighting, even
with fully shielded or U0 luminaires, reflects
unnecessary light into the atmosphere and
adds to sky glow. To minimize light pollution,
first minimize the overall amount of light.
Exterior lighting should be used only where
and when it is needed. Define the lighting
requirements of each street or public area and
provide only the necessary lighting. Street and
pedestrian lighting in residential areas should
be dimmable and have house side shielding
options to allow the City to proactively address
specific complaints about light pollution or
light trespass.
All lighting in the city should be designed
based on the criteria in this plan to reduce over
lighting. In addition, lighting should be shielded
and dimmable.
The strategies to limit light pollution are similar to those
identified for Light Trespass.
• Lighting in environmentally sensitive areas
should always prioritize minimizing light
pollution by not over lighting and using
luminaires with zero uplight and minimal
light at high angles.
• In areas of heavy pedestrian traffic, light at
higher angles may be necessary to provide
the vertical illuminance and positive contrast
to safely light crosswalks with more light at
higher angles.
• Decorative luminaires can contribute more
to sky glow, but designers can still install
decorative luminaires with minimal uplight
component that maintain the historic
character of the area.
The historic acorn style lights currently used
on the Downtown “Cactus” pole distribute a
significant amount of light upward, contributing
to increased light pollution and sky glow.
Figure 12: Light Pollution
38
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of this Street Lighting
Master Plan will require additional investment
in the lighting and electrical infrastructure
throughout Salt Lake City and multiple years
to install. To ensure the equitable distribution
of street lighting improvement projects,
this Master Plan recommends how the City
prioritizes these projects and some changes
in the funding mechanisms. The current
funding strategy provides a base level of street
lighting under the standard Public Utility Street
Lighting Fee. To apply for additional pedestrian
scale lighting under the Special Improvement
Districts program, an additional fee is required
to install pedestrian scale lighting in a specific
neighborhood. This results in more affluent
neighborhoods with more lighting than less
affluent neighborhoods. The City should
develop an alternative funding mechanism
that provides more equitable distribution and
access to pedestrian scale lights throughout
the City, not just in areas that can afford the
additional fees.
INITIAL COSTS
The initial investment in street and pedestrian
lighting improvements will vary based on the
strategy chosen to bring the current system
into compliance with this plan. Comprehensive
improvements, such as lighting redesign,
will have the highest initial costs, whereas
1-for-1 replacements of existing luminaires
will have lower initial costs. In many areas
the 1-for-1 replacement strategy will achieve
plan purposes. Other areas require more
comprehensive improvements, such as
relocation of poles or installation of new
lighting. Costs included design and engineering
costs (Design & Construction Documents,
Utility Surveying), lighting equipment costs
(Luminaires, Poles, Lighting Controls), and
infrastructure costs (Foundations, Conduit &
Wire, Surface Replacement).
The public engagement process identified that increasing
the use of pedestrian scale lighting is a community-wide
high priority. Prioritization of pedestrian scale lighting
upgrades include:
• Lighting upgrades and additional pedestrian
lighting in currently underlit areas.
• Strategic placement and appropriate light
levels will minimize power consumption and
eliminate unnecessary equipment.
• Lighting upgrades and new projects in areas
identified as critical wildlife habitats using
proper equipment and lighting levels.
LONG TERM LIFE CYCLE COSTS
• Changing to LED lighting will drastically
reduce the life cycle and operating costs
of the street lighting system. LED lighting
requires significantly less power than legacy
sources, such as high-pressure sodium,
reducing the life cycle energy costs of the
system. With a lifespan of up to 100,000
hours, LEDs need to be replaced significantly
less often than legacy luminaires, reducing
maintenance costs.
• Energy Costs (Luminaire Watts, Dimming,
Part-Night Lighting, Annual kWh baseline,
Annual kWh projected)
• Maintenance Costs (Minimizing Lighting
Equipment SKUs, Equipment Life)
Figure 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy &
Balance
39
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
MAINTENANCE
• Proper maintenance is critical for the
effectiveness of the lighting design. LEDs
are known for their durability, longevity,
and consistency in lighting, but quality
components are essential to ensure this.
The LED electronic driver will fail first if a
low-quality luminaire is purchased. Planning
and budgeting for high-quality luminaires
ensures a longer lifespan with much less
required maintenance.
• Another aspect of maintenance involves the
dirt and dust that can accumulate inside or
on the outside lenses of luminaires. Because
street lighting will rarely, if ever, be cleaned,
luminaires must have adequate ingress
protection (IP) against dust and water.
Requiring the use of street and pedestrian
luminaires with a minimum rating of IP65
means that the luminaire is dust-tight and
watertight.
ENERGY
Reducing energy use in Salt Lake City can be
achieved by using energy efficient LED light
sources, providing appropriate light levels
without over-lighting, and reducing light levels
after a curfew by dimming or turning off non-
essential lighting.
Reduction in Energy use for street and pedestrian lighting
is consistent with the guideposts as transitioning all
lighting to LED significantly reducing the amount of
energy that will be used.
• The City is striving to reduce over lighting
by installing a control system to allow for
dimming and further reduction of lighting,
adding to the energy savings.
• In more environmentally sensitive areas, this
master plan requires phosphor converted
amber LEDs with additional shielding.
Although these do not use as much energy
as legacy light sources, they are still not as
efficient as broad spectrum white LEDs.
These lights will be used to reduce the
adverse effects of lighting on the wildlife in
ecologically sensitive areas.
STANDARDIZATION
Salt Lake City has a very diverse street and
pedestrian lighting system that utilizes historic
decorative lights of various types and provides
distinct character to different districts within
the City. Providing variety of character requires
Public Utilities to stock more components to
service and maintain the lighting system. While
this Street Lighting Master Plan establishes
Character as one of its Guideposts, this must
also consider the balance with Responsibility
to minimize costs and inventory for Public
Utilities to manage and maintain the street and
pedestrian lighting system within their budget.
To strike this balance between Character and
Responsibility, this Street Lighting Master Plan
intends to provide some variety of options
within a set of Standardized Components.
• Luminaire Styles
• Pole Styles
• Armature Styles
• Base Styles
• Color Options
Figure 14: Energy
40
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
STREET LIGHTING PLAN
LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
PURPOSE
There are several strategies the city can use
to implement this Street Lighting Master
Plan and improve the quality of street and
pedestrian lighting. Each of the strategies
will result in a safe environment for drivers
and pedestrians while using equipment that
minimizes light pollution and light trespass.
The plan recommends that the city utilize
each of the strategies as appropriate for the
specific current streetlighting configuration,
road classification, pedestrian volume adjacent
land use, neighborhood or districts character
and the presence of environmentally sensitive
wildlife areas. In addition, each strategy
should be discussed through a neighborhood
engagement process and reviewed to ensure
an optimal balance of the four guideposts is
achieved.
LIGHTING LAYOUT STRATEGIES
Volume II – Technical Lighting Development
Guide of this Master Plan provides a matrix
by which the appropriate strategy should be
identified using street types and warrants. The
matrix is applied on a block by block basis to
ensure the most appropriate lighting for each
area. Figure 15 is a snapshot of the Salt Lake
City Lighting Warrants matrix described in
more detail in Volume II.
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
41
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
PE
D
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
St
r
e
e
t
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Pe
d
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
PE
D
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
St
r
e
e
t
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Pe
d
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
PE
D
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
St
r
e
e
t
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Pe
d
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
OR
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
OR
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
&
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
&
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
&
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
OR
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
C
o
n
t
.
OR
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
&
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
&
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
OR
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
C
o
n
t
.
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
C
o
n
t
.
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
OR
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
OR
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
C
o
n
t
.
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
C
o
n
t
.
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
OR
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
OR
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Ca
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
s
Ca
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
s
Ca
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
OR
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
OR
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
&
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
&
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
&
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Ca
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
s
Ca
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
s
Ca
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
OR
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
C
o
n
t
.
OR
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
&
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
&
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
OR
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
&
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
&
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
&
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
&
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
C
o
n
t
.
OR
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
No
n
-
C
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
&
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
Op
t
i
o
n
a
l
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
C
o
n
t
.
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
No
n
-
c
o
n
t
.
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
L
i
t
B
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
N
O
T
L
i
t
b
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
In
t
.
O
n
l
y
NA
Of
f
i
c
e
P
a
r
k
Of
f
i
c
e
P
a
r
k
Of
f
i
c
e
P
a
r
k
Lo
w
Lo
w
Lo
w
Lo
w
Lo
w
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Hi
g
h
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Hi
g
h
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Hi
g
h
Me
d
Me
d
Me
d
SL
C
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
Lo
c
a
l
Lo
w
Me
d
Me
d
Mu
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Lo
w
Hi
g
h
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Me
d
Lo
w
Lo
w
Me
d
Me
d
Me
d
Lo
w
Lo
w
Lo
w
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
NA
NA
Mu
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Mu
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Me
d
Lo
w
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Hi
g
h
Hi
g
h
Me
d
Me
d
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
C
a
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
C
a
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Lo
w
Lo
w
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
C
a
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
C
a
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
C
a
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
C
a
c
t
u
s
P
o
l
e
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
5
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
M
a
t
r
i
x
42
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
This section summarizes the strategies identified in the matrix.
STREET LIGHTING ONLY
PURPOSE
• Quality street lighting must consider the entire context of the streetscape environment,
extending beyond the street itself to provide quality light for sidewalks while controlling
obtrusive light trespass, glare and light pollution.
• Street trees with large canopies and thick foliage are integral to the character of Salt Lake
City’s streets and public realm. Street Lighting Only can be a successful strategy in areas that
have smaller and fewer trees but may result shadowing sidewalks on streets with large trees.
• The wide streets and right-of-way in Salt Lake City provide opportunities on many streets to
have a very wide Park Strip that separates the sidewalk from the street. The width of the Park
Strip also affects the ability of Street Lighting Only to effectively illuminate the sidewalks.
Figure 16: Street Lighting Only Cross Section
43
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
STREET AND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
• A combination of Street and Pedestrian Lighting is used in areas of high pedestrian activity,
and on streets with street trees that create shadowing, or with wide Park Strips where Street
Light Only is ineffective at illuminating the sidewalks. This will support a safer and more visually
comfortable pedestrian environment.
Figure 17: Street & Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
44
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING ONLY
• Pedestrian lighting helps differentiate an area as pedestrian centric and is a visual cue for
drivers to be more aware of people in the public right of way.
• Pedestrian lighting in residential areas reduces light trespass into homes, and the character of
the lights can differentiate neighborhoods throughout the city.
• In downtown environments, pedestrian lighting identifies restaurants, retail and other pedestrian
centric areas, creating a more inviting and safer place for people walking the city.
• When using this Pedestrian Lighting Only strategy, street lights should still be located at
intersections.
Figure 18: Pedestrian Only Lighting Cross Section
45
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
SPECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICTS
• There is a rich history of street lighting in Salt Lake City that has established Special Lighting
Districts with unique street lighting character. Areas like Downtown and Sugarhouse District
have unique historic street lighting that with a combination of both street and pedestrian lights
mounted on the same light pole. As Salt Lake City evolves, new Special Lighting Districts
may be desired to create and enhance a unique sense of place. Any new Special Lighting
Districts must be coordinated with Salt Lake City to determine the ownership and maintenance
agreements, and must follow the lighting strategies and lighting criteria established in this
Street Lighting Master Plan.
Figure 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section
46
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
INTERSECTION LIGHTING
• Proper lighting at intersections is critical for vehicle and pedestrian safety throughout the
entire city.
• Intersection lighting is the minimum standard throughout the city.
• Intersection lighting encompasses the roadway after the stop bar as well as any painted
crosswalks.
• See Intersection & Crosswalk Lighting for layout and spacing criteria.
Figure 20: Intersection Lighting Plan
47
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
VERTICAL ILLUMINATION IN CROSSWALKS
• Proper crosswalk lighting in high traffic areas, commercial corridors, will support a safer and
more pedestrian friendly city.
• Lighting in the vertical plane will increase visibility in crosswalks and help to reduce vehicle-
pedestrian accidents.
• See Intersection & Crosswalk Lighting for layout and spacing criteria.
Figure 21: Crosswalk Lighting
48
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
BUS STOP
• Uncovered bus stops should be lit by a
street luminaire positioned 1/2 to 1 mounting
height from the bus stop in the direction of
oncoming traffic.
• Bus shelters with integrated lights should
provide vertical illumination to aid in facial
recognition. Street lights in close proximity
increase ambient light and visual comfort.
• See Volume 2 for additional information.
ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTED AREAS
The Salt Lake Valley is not only home to a
bustling urban city but is also home to diverse
and vulnerable wildlife populations and sensitive
Dark Sky Areas. Salt Lake City recognizes
the impacts that street lighting can have on
these sensitive areas and wants to minimize
the negative effects of street lighting at night.
The map below highlights environmentally
sensitive areas where the following lighting
characteristics should be used:
• Color Temperature (CCT) no higher than
2200K,
• All lights should have increase backlight
control to reduce the amount of spill light
• All lights should have zero uplight.
To read more on the impacts of light at night
within the Salt Lake Valley, reference Appendix
D: Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological
Health.
IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING
When deciding which Lighting Layout Strategy
to use at various locations throughout the
city, the adjacent land use is a critical factor
in determining nighttime pedestrian activity.
Although there are many different zoning
designations in Salt Lake City, this master
plan consolidates land uses into seven
different categories: Commercial, Office Park,
Downtown, Industrial, Multi-Family Residential,
Single Family Residential, and Open Space. The
different adjacent land uses throughout the city
and more information on determining adjacent
land use can be found in Volume 2.
Each adjacent land use has different primary
considerations that determine lighting
strategy and criteria. The most critical of these
considerations is pedestrian and vehicle volume
during nighttime hours. Areas of higher volume
at night, such as Downtown and Commercial,
require additional lighting, whereas industrial
areas do not see the same traffic volumes
during dark hours. This Master Plan also
strives to be environmentally responsible, and
balances vehicle and pedestrian safety with
environmentally protective actions based
on adjacent land use. The table below shows
the main considerations, environmentally
protective actions, max CCT, and lighting
strategies for each adjacent land use.
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
49
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
TABLE 5: LIGHTING LAYOUT STRATEGY BY LAND USE
ADJACENT LAND USE MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
ENVIRONMENTALLY
PROTECTIVE ACTIONS MAX CCT*LIGHTING STRATEGIES
Commercial • Diverse Land Use with
High, Medium, and
Low Pedestrian and
Vehicle Activity During
Night Hours
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 3000K • All Lighting
Strategies
Possible to Safely
and Appropriately
Light the Streets
and Sidewalks.
Office Park • Low Pedestrian
Conflict at Night
• Overlap with
Environmentally
Protected Areas
• Lower CCT
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 3000K • Non-Continuous
Street Lighting
• Possible Non-
Continuous
Pedestrian
Lighting
Downtown • High and Medium
Pedestrian and Vehicle
Activity During Night
Hours
• Historic Character
using Cactus Pole
Lights
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 3000K • Continuous Street
and Pedestrian
Lighting
Industrial • Low Pedestrian
Conflict at Night
• Environmental
Concerns
• Lower CCT
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 2200K • Street Lighting at
Intersections Only
Multifamily
Residential
• Pedestrian Safety
• Representing the
Character of the Area
• Minimizing Light
Trespass
• Controlling
Spectrum
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 3000K
(Arterial)
• 2700K
(Collector/
Local)
• Continuous and
Non-Continuous
Street Lighting
• Continuous and
Non-Continuous
Pedestrian
Lighting
Single Family • Pedestrian Safety
• Representing the
Character of the Area
• Minimizing Light
Trespass
• Controlling
Spectrum
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 3000K
(Arterial)
• 2700K
(Collector
Local)
• Continuous and
Non-Continuous
Street Lighting
• Continuous and
Non-Continuous
Pedestrian
Lighting
Open Space • Environmental
Concerns
• Minimizing Light
Trespass
• Controlling
Spectrum
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 2200K • Non-Continuous
Street Lighting
• Street Lighting at
Intersections Only
*Max CCT to be 2000K in Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
50
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
STREET LIGHTING EQUIPMENT
AND TECHNOLOGY
When future improvements are made to the
lighting throughout Salt Lake City, the lighting
equipment selected should reflect the principles
established by the Guideposts of Safety,
Character and Responsibility. New equipment
should match or enhance the character of the
area, while also safely and responsible lighting
the area.
This Street Lighting Master Plan places an
increased priority on responsible lighting by
using luminaires that reduce wasted light to sky
glow and light trespass, and have the highest
levels of energy efficiency. Future luminaires
installed in the city will all be fully shielded
LED lights with no light directed upward from
the light source, understanding that there is a
minimal allowance for reflected uplight from
post-top style luminaires. As existing luminaires
are upgraded to LED and new projects are
constructed, the City will become a safer place
for pedestrians and commuters. New pedestrian
lighting will better illuminate sidewalks and
crosswalks, while all new lights will reduce glare
and improve nighttime visibility.
As these upgrades are being made to safer and
more responsible luminaires, the character of
the new lights should also match the character
of the area. The lighting equipment installed at
a particular site will depend on the character of
the site and the adjacent land use. Precedent
character, such as Downtown Cactus Poles
or Sugarhouse Teardrop luminaires, will be
upgraded to similar style of luminaire that
reduces uplight and light trespass onto adjacent
private property.
51
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
Luminaires (Style, Finish Color, Lumens, Distribution, CCT, CRI, BUG Rating, Shielding, Dimming
Driver (0-10V, DALI), ANSI 7-Pin Receptacle, Integral Wireless Dimming Node)
Light Standards (Pole, Arms, Base, Finish Color, Banner Arms, Holiday Receptacles, Planter Arms,
Traffic Signs, ANSI 7-Pin Receptacle (alt location))
Lighting Controls (Adaptive Dimming, Maintenance Reporting, Asset Management)
Smart City Devices (4G/5G Small Cell, Security Cameras, Air Quality Sensors, Smart Parking,
Speakers, Gun Shot Detection, EV Charging Stations, Traffic Monitoring, Noise Monitoring
TABLE 6: RECOMMENDED LUMINARIES BY LAND USE
CACTUS POLE TEAR DROP COBRA HEAD PEDESTRIAN ACORN PEDESTRIAN ARM
MOUNT
ADJACENT LAND USE
Commercial N/A
S. Temple
State Street
Sugarhouse BD
Base Level N/A Non-Continuous
or N/A
Office Park N/A N/A Base Level N/A Non-Continuous
Downtown Downtown
Historic
S. Temple
State Street
Sugarhouse BD
Base Level N/A Continuous or
Non-Continuous
Industrial N/A N/A Base Level N/A N/A
Multi-Family
Residential N/A N/A
Intersection & Mid-
Block or Intersection
Only
Rose Park Continuous or
Non-Continuous
Single Family
Residential N/A N/A
Intersection & Mid-
Block or Intersection
Only
Rose Park Continuous or
Non-Continuous
Open Space N/A N/A
Intersection & Mid-
Block or Intersection
Only
N/A N/A
52
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS COMPLEXITY & COST
Throughout Salt Lake City, there are various
existing lighting conditions, which results in
lighting improvement projects with different
levels of complexity and cost that range
from minimal improvements, such as 1-for-1
replacements, to comprehensive improvements,
such as complete lighting redesign. The
complexity and cost to improve the lighting
in certain areas will depend on the existing
lighting conditions, location within the city, and
the need for improved lighting. The City should
evaluate each site and determine which level of
improvements need to be made.
MINIMAL: 1-FOR-1 REPLACEMENTS
The most cost effective and quickest way to
improve the lighting is 1-for-1 replacements.
Salt Lake City has already begun the process
for upgrading old HPS lights to new LEDs. This
should be and has been implemented in areas
that already have acceptable existing lighting
layouts and where street lighting sufficiently
illuminates the roadway and adjacent sidewalks.
1-for-1 replacements from HPS to LED will
lead to lower life cycle costs through reduced
energy and maintenance. When upgrading
to LED luminaires, adjacent land use must be
considered. 1-for-1 replacement luminaires
should reflect the character of the area, while
also maintaining consistent light levels and
color temperature appropriate to the site.
SUPPLEMENTAL:
Additional street and pedestrian lighting
may be required where the existing lighting
layout does not sufficiently light the street or
sidewalk. Additional street lighting may be
needed if existing lights are spaced too far
apart to uniformly light the roadway, or if there
is no street lighting at all. Additional pedestrian
lights may be needed when there is a large park
strip between the sidewalk and the streetlights,
where there is excessive shadowing from
trees, or in areas where pedestrian lights are
desired. See Volume 2 on recommendations on
additional pedestrian lighting.
COMPREHENSIVE:
Comprehensive improvements to the current
conditions call for complete lighting redesign.
This should be considered in areas of the City
where lighting redesign is required to meet
requirements in the Lighting Warrants Table.
Comprehensive improvements will need to
be done on streets where new continuous or
non-continuous street or pedestrian lighting
is required. Streets without any lighting will
also require comprehensive improvements and
should comply with the lighting requirements
in the lighting warrants table.
PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
Evaluating where lighting improvements
should be made, and which projects should
be prioritized can be a difficult process. The
purpose of this section is to help provide
guidance when deciding where and when
lighting improvements should be made.
Areas that are currently underserved by the
existing lighting and are adjacent to “High
Priority Conflict Zones” should be the first to
be upgraded. The more “High Priority Conflict
Zones” that an underserved area is adjacent to,
the higher priority it should be to improve the
lighting. If an underserved area is not adjacent
to any “High Priority Conflict Zones” the City
should get public opinion from residents in the
neighborhood to determine is upgraded or
additional lighting is desired.
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
53
AREAS UNDERSERVED BY STREET LIGHTING
As seen in the lighting density map in Figure 3 on page 24, there are neighborhoods and areas
of the city currently underserved by street lighting. Public outreach is required in these areas to
identify neighborhood interest in upgrading lighting in these areas, particularly for pedestrians.
Neighborhood outreach will allow interested residents to review the options identified in the
lighting matrix and make an informed decision for their area.
HIGH PRIORITY CONFLICT AREAS
High Priority Conflict Areas are locations throughout the city where there is typically increased
pedestrian or bicycle activity. If a location underserved by the existing lighting and is near a
High Priority Conflict Area(s), that site should be prioritized. Maps showing these areas are
shown below. A site with more High Priority Conflict Areas should become a priority area for
implementation.
School Zones
Streets within a one-block radius of all schools within the Salt Lake Valley should be lighted
according to the appropriate adjacent land use and increased pedestrian conflict level as a result
of being close to a school. If a school falls within a neighborhood where minimum lighting is
desired by residents, additional lighting for pedestrian safety should be installed. Lighting near
school zones should ensure that crosswalks are sufficiently lighted as well as all entrances and
exits to the campus.
0 1 20.5
MilesSchool Overlay
Key
Lighting Strategies Heat Map
SLC Boundary
Schools
Streetlights
Dense
Sparse
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
Figure 22: School Locations
54
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Bus Stops
Lighting near bus stops should also be prioritized within the city. If a bus stop is not already
sufficiently lighted, placing one light on the approach side of an uncovered bus stop one half to
one mounting height is required. See Volume 2 for more information on covered and uncovered
bus stops.
1 Mile
I-215
I-15
I-80
I-80
70
0
E
.
ST
A
T
E
S
T
.
FOOTHILL
SOUTH
TEMPLE
RE
D
W
O
O
D
RD
.
56
0
0
W
.
2100 S.
400 S.
¯
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
Figure 23: Bus Stops
55
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
Transit Stations
Transit stations within the Salt Lake Valley are lighted by UTA and are not within the jurisdiction on
Salt Lake City. However, these transit stations result in higher pedestrian and vehicle traffic volume
on adjacent streets. Adjacent streets should be lighted according to the appropriate adjacent land
use and the increased pedestrian volume as a result of being close to a transit station.
¯1 Mile
I-15
I-80
I-80
Transit Stops
Commuter Rail Stations
Commuter Rail
Light Rail Stations
Light Rail
I-215
I-80
70
0
E
.
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
.
FOOTHILL
SOUTH
TEMPLE
RE
D
W
O
O
D
RD
.
56
0
0
W
.
2100 S.
400 S.
Figure 24: Transit Station Locations
56
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
Neighborhood Byways
Salt Lake City is working on encouraging more biking and walking in the City by creating
pedestrian centric streets called neighborhood byways. The streets should be continuous lighting
with pedestrian lights to help encourage more pedestrian travel.
¯1 Miles
I-215
I-15
I-80
I-80
70
0
E
.
ST
A
T
E
S
T
.
FOOTHILL
SOUTH
TEMPLE
RE
D
W
O
O
D
RD
.
56
0
0
W
.
2100 S.
400 S.
Figure 25: Neighborhood Byways Locations
57
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
PRIORITIZING 1-FOR-1 LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
For areas where current street lighting is adequate in terms of pole type and head placement
and type, one-for-one replacements from HPS to LEDs is the appropriate response to improve
light quality and achieve energy savings. The City is currently working toward upgrading all street
lights to LED, but should prioritize locations with existing HPS lights, are well as locations where
LED lights are glaring or obtrusive.
Streets with Existing High-Pressure Sodium
Street Lights
The City should prioritize upgrading existing HPS
lights to new LEDs with increased glare control
and dimming capabilities. More information on
selecting the proper replacement luminaire can
be found in Volume 2.
Reduce Glare and Light Trespass
Some LED lights within Salt Lake City are too
bright and can cause glare and light trespass.
These lights should be replaced with new
LEDs that have better glare control and are
compatible with the City’s lighting control
system. Additionally, some LEDs within the city
have a higher color temperature than 3000K
and should be replaced by a luminaire with
appropriate CCT based on adjacent land use.
Reduce Light Pollution from Existing Decorative
Lights
Converting the existing Cactus Pole lights
to LED lights with “U0” uplight rating will
significantly reduce the amount of sky glow
and light pollution around Salt Lake City.
EXISTING CACTUS POLE LIGHTS UPGRADED CACTUS POLE LIGHTS
58
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
DESCRIPTION OF VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL LIGHTING DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
ST
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
B
A
S
I
C
S
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
59
LLiigghhtt TTeerrmmss aanndd DDeeffiinniittiioonn
The following terms are used throughout this Master Plan and in the lighting industry. Understanding
these terms is essential to properly understanding and implementing this Lighting Master Plan.
LLiigghhttiinngg TTeerrmm UUnniitt DDeeffiinniittiioonn
Backlight, Uplight,
and Glare (BUG)
Ratings
B0 – B5
U0 – U5
G0 – G5
Luminaire Classification System for Outdoor Luminaires per IES TM-15
describing the amount of uplight, backlight and glare. Lower numbers in
each classification are associated with lower impacts.
• BB == bbaacckklliigghhtt, or the light directed behind the luminaire.
• UU == uupplliigghhtt, or the light directed above the horizontal plane of
the luminaire.
• GG == ggllaarree, or the amount of light emitted from the luminaire at
angles known to cause glare.
Color Rendering
Index (CRI)
0 - 100 The color rendering index (CRI) is a developed metric on a scale of 0 to
100, to communicate the ability of the light to render an object’s natural
color
Continuous
Lighting
A street lighting system made up of regularly spaced luminaires along
the street. Criteria typically defines minimum and maximum illuminance
or luminance values and overall uniformity along the lighted area.
Correlated Color
Temperature (CCT)
Kelvin (K) The color appearance of the light emitted by a lamp. The CCT rating for
a lamp is a general "warmth" or "coolness" measure of its appearance.
Fire has a CCT of 1850K and daylight is 6000K.
Glare The visual sensation created by luminance (or brightness) that is
significantly higher than the surrounding luminance that the eyes are
adapted to, causing annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance
and visibility (disability glare).
Illuminance Footcandle
(Fc)
The density of light (lumens per square foot) falling onto a surface.
Commonly measured in the horizontal and vertical planes.
Illuminating
Engineering
Society (IES)
The IES strives to improve the lighted environment by publishing
recommended practices to guide lighting designers, architects,
engineers, sales professionals, and researchers. The IES’s The Lighting
Handbook and Recommended Practices are the recognized authoritative
reference on the science and application of lighting.
Legacy Light
Source
All non-LED light sources: incandescent, halogen, high pressure sodium,
low pressure sodium, induction, and fluorescent.
Life Cycle Cost An economic analysis of an investment that covers all the costs and
benefits over the expected life of the equipment or system. Unlike a
simple payback analysis, it accounts for maintenance and energy even
after the system is paid for with projected savings.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
A
60
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
61
DRAFT SURVEY
9/5/2018
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEY QUESTIONS:
1. Place pin on map in general location of where you live or work.
o Provide map with pin location ability
2. Does the street lighting around this location allow you to feel safe while walking outside during
dark hours of the day? (Mark One)
o Yes
o No
3. If the pin located reflects where you live, does the current street lighting interfere with your
sleeping habits? (Mark One)
o Yes
o No
o N/A (Pin does not reflect location of my home)
4. What is your impression of the light level on the street you live on? (the response will change
the color of the pin)
o Comfortable (pin color: green)
o Too Dark (pin color: blue)
o Too Bright (pin color: red)
5. Do you like the color of the light source?
o Yes
o No
6. Does the light source create too much glare?
o Yes
o No
7. Please provide any additional comments:
o Write in additional comments
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
62
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
AGENDA
PROJECT #: 2018.075 MEETING #: 2
PROJECT: SLC Street Lighting Master Plan
NEXT MEETING: Tentative: Sept 19, 2018
MEETING DATE: September 5, 2018
ISSUED BY: L. Smith | GSBS Architects
Revised post meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENDEES:
X Jesse Allen X Brad Stewart
X Lauren Smith Jesse Stewart
Christine Richmond
X Dane Sanders
X Riley Rose
X Jason Brown
X David Pearson
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Review Public Outreach Strategy
o Advisory Committee Members
▪ District 1 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 2 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 3 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 4 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 5 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 6 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 7 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ Mayor’s Office Representative
▪ Public Utilities Representative
o Technical Committee Members
▪ SLC Engineering, Sean Fyfe
▪ SLC Transportation, Jon Larsen
▪ SLC Planning, Doug Dansie
▪ SLC Planning, Molly Robinson
▪ SLC Parks + Public Lands, Nancy Monteith
▪ SLC Fire
▪ SLC Police
o Stakeholder Groups (Individual Groups + representatives representing each group)
Draft List
▪ Downtown Alliance + Business Districts (9th and 9th, Sugarhouse)
▪ Environmental (Dark Sky, Tracy Aviary, Audubon)
▪ Multi-modal (UTA, Bicycle Transit)
▪ School District
▪ Inland Port, NW Quadrant
o Draft Public Survey
▪ See Attachment ‘DRAFT SURVEY’
63
2. Review Proposed Project Schedule
o See Attachment
3. Status of Contract
o Updates
4. Next Steps
o SLC Public Utilities to review pass along revised Draft Survey for review
o GSBS and Clanton to review and revise scope and fee – get to Public Utilities early next
week
o Brad to send GSBS and Clanton contact for Open City Hall to work together on upload
process and capabilities of public survey
OTHER INFORMATION:
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
64
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
MEETING NOTES
PROJECT #: 2018.075 MEETING #: 9
PROJECT: SLC Street Lighting Master Plan
NEXT MEETING: TBD
MEETING DATE: April 26, 2019
ISSUED BY: L. Smith | GSBS Architects
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These notes represent the general understanding of the author concerning the topics covered. If there
are errors or misrepresentations, please inform the author in writing and adjustments will be made with
the next issuance of notes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENDEES:
X Jesse Allen, GSBS Architects Laura Briefer, Public Utilities
X Lauren Smith, GSBS Architects Holley Mullen, Public Utilities
X Dane Sanders, Clanton and Associates X Katie, Clanton and Associates
X Riley Rose, Clanton and Associates X Technical Committee
X David Pearson, Public Utilities X Annette, Planning
X Jesse Stewart, Public Utilities X Cooper, Police
Brad Stewart, Public Utilities X Ron Fife, Fire Department
X Jack, SLC Engineering X Peter, Sustainability
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Goal:
o How to spend the budget within
▪ The next 5-10 years
▪ What is needed to budget and how to prioritize
2. Planning (Annette filling in for Mayara)
o Design and color of the streetlights fit within the neighborhood
• Historic Districts
• Rose Park
• Poplar Grove
o Color meaning: the LED color temperature and the color of the poles/luminaries
o Day time aesthetics
▪ No planning master plans include streetlights currently
▪ Need to double check to make sure if there is any overlap
o Conflict between districts if they do not get the same thing?
▪ Historic districts are treated completely differently than others
▪ Guidelines for street lighting in historic districts
o Have the street lighting master plan acknowledge the design guidelines
o Review the historic districts and guidelines
o Other districts:
▪ Downtown district
o Districts vs. neighborhoods
▪ Rose park and poplar grove are known for their street trees
▪ These should be on the website
▪ Maybe already in GIS
o Make sure to get those layers in GIS
3. Engineering
o What existing programmatic controls does the city have that protect the existing streetlight
utility/ power supply?
o As more lights get installed, what can be done to make sure that the power supply is
protected?
o Subsurface in the right of way is getting really crowded
65
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
o Currently the lines are not in Blue Stake
o Is it practical/room for improvement on location of lines?
o As time/budget allows, possibility to move the lines into blue stake
▪ This would keep survey crews busy for about 2 years
▪ This would lie more in implementation vs. master plan
▪ Important to note in recommendations of how to move forward
4. Sustainability
o Energy 2040
▪ 80% reduction in our Green House Gases by 2040 (community wide for the whole city)
▪ 50% renewable energy goal by 2020
▪ Baseline is 2009
o Updating Climate response plans
o Solar Street Light just received
▪ On a cul-de-sac off 2700 S testing
o Solar Roadways
▪ Lot of progress in Europe and a company in Idaho
o Slowed wholesale replacements until this master plan is complete
▪ Replacing as needed but not overhaul now
o What % of the City’s energy does Street light make up?
o Strategies:
▪ LED obvious
▪ Dimming
▪ Lumens/watt
o Technology, part of our perception
o Dimmable LED’s at 17th and 17th
▪ Maybe run a test program and dim the lights down to 50% for a week then possibly dim
down to 25%
o Dark Sky
5. Police
o Evidence Preservation
o Preventing Crime
o Controlling Crime
o Smart Lighting
▪ Help a lot with tactical teams to go into a standoff – control the lighting on that block
would be immensely important and helpful
▪ Dimming down and making brighter both could be helpful
▪ Dave can give Police and Fire log in to Smart Lights to be able to control on their own
when needed
▪ Gunshot detection
▪ Lead the fire truck
▪ Citizens are asking for it too
o Opportunities
▪ Brighten up when Jazz game lets out
▪ Lower the lights during snowstorm
▪ Over design for brighter level and dim?
▪ Or overdrive the LEDs for short period of time during when you want them up
• What are those cost implications?
o Lighting for the sidewalks in different neighborhoods
o Support LED because of the color rendering for victims and witnesses to identify colors of
cars and suspects
o Trees block a lot of the light in different neighborhoods
o Even/consistent lighting throughout neighborhoods
o Lots of midblock lights are blocked by the trees
o Acorn lights - because of the way they light
▪ A lot of glare
▪ The way it glares it creates a blind spot especially right at the pole
o Stop the light right at the back of the sidewalk
▪ Glare makes it nearly impossible to see anything from a camera
o Distribution of light
6. Fire
o Inclusive with police
o Uneven light when responding can lead to inability to see pedestrians and cars
66
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
▪ Even light help the drivers see vehicle and pedestrians
▪ Evening lighting on the street and approach at a minimum to get where they need to be
without obstruction
o On seen
▪ Visualizing the addresses
▪ Ongoing issue
▪ Maybe hard to address with street lighting
▪ Able to illuminate the seen if needed see obstacles
▪ People step in holes because they cannot see where they are going,
▪ Focused on the issue they are there to solve
End of meeting notes.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
67
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 1
Existing Street Lighting Conditions
Salt Lake City, Utah
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of the existing street lighting conditions and a Master Plan to aid in transitioning
the remainder of the street lighting from a high pressure sodium system to an LED system and implement a lighting
control system,with the intent to improve visibility and aesthetics while reducing energy and maintenance. The Master
Plan develops new street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction.To obtain a comprehensive understanding
of the existing lighting, Clanton & Associates surveyed seventeen locations within the city,conducted nighttime surveys,
and calculated the light levels along primary arterial,minor arterial, collector and local streets.From these evaluations,
existing condition templates were created to aid the city in prioritizing improvement areas which will influence street
lighting retrofits.By enhancing the street lighting, the city will promote a higher standard of well being as well as a more
comfortable place for residents and commuters.
Evaluation of Existing Lighting Conditions
In November 2018,Clanton & Associates evaluated the current lighting conditions at seventeen sites around the city that
provided an understanding of the diversity of lighting conditions. The selected sites included arterial, collector and local
streets with industrial, commercial,and residential areas.Both horizontal and vertical illuminance
1measurements were
taken along the sidewalks at each site. Luminance
2 measurements were also taken to provide an understanding of
surrounding surface brightness. These measured light levels were used to compare the existing light levels to the light
level recommendations by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). Clanton & Associates also took high-dynamic-
range (HDR)images as a visual representation of the perceived nighttime experience.Along with the lighting
measurements, the Advisory and Technical Committees completed a subjective survey assessing the lighted
environment at each site. The survey evaluated how each participant felt about the lighting strategies and overall light
levels at each site as well as how comfortable participants were at the sites. The survey results will be compared to
existing light levels and lighting criteria to guide the development of the Street Lighting Master Plan and the lighting
standards included in it. The site evaluations,and lighting measurements can be found in this report.
Street Lighting Levels
To understand the street lighting throughout the entire city,Clanton & Associates will calculate light levels on arterial,
collector and residential streets. These calculations will be compared to existing street lighting GIS data to determine
how well roadways were lighted.Street blocks will be categorized into three levels of acceptability based on the
calculations, lamp wattage, street type,luminaire spacing,and by comparing measure lighting levels to IES standards.
Acceptable:Streets that met the lighting standards based on street classification with existing luminaire spacing.
These areas would not require any lighting improvements beyond the LED retrofit assuming all current luminaires
are operating properly.
Moderately Acceptable:Streets that do not meet lighting standards based on street classification with existing
luminaire spacing.Typically,these are blocks that have relatively small dark spaces between poles and would
require minor improvements in order to meet lighting standards.
Poor:Streets that have very low,or no,street lighting. These are blocks that typically do not have enough existing
street lights and will most likely require significant investment in new lighting and electrical infrastructure to meet
lighting standards.
Lighting Improvements
Lighting improvements in Salt Lake City will enhance lighting on arterial,collector and residential streets by classifying
each street,setting standards and guidelines for street lighting retrofit and new construction projects.Well lit streets will
help to reduce vehicle accidents as well as pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Various character districts will be designated
throughout the city in order to provide cohesive and quality lighting based on the surrounding environment. Vertical light
levels will also be increased to enhance pedestrian and object visibility.LED luminaires consume significantly less
energy and require far less maintenance than traditional lighting systems resulting in a quick return on investment.
Executive Summary Existing Conditions Example
3.5
0.1
0.9
cd/m2
The following High Dynamic Range images (HDR)and measured illuminance levels were taken during the
November 2018 site visit.An analysis of the seventeen sites surveyed can be found in this report.
1000E 2100S–Acceptable (1.76 average luminance)
1900E & Sunnyside –Unacceptable (0.41 average luminance)
Measured Illuminance Levels
Criteria Acceptance Level Luminance Type (cd/m^2)Street Luminance
Arterial Street Criteria Acceptable Average 0.9
1000E. 2100S.Acceptable Average 1.76
1900S. Sunnyside Unacceptable Average 0.41
3.5
0.1
0.9
cd/m2
1 Illuminance: the amount of light reaching a surface, expressed in units of footcandles [fc]
2 Luminance: the amount of light reflected from a surface that the eye perceives, expressed in units of candela per
square meter [cd/m2]
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
68
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 3
Street Classifications
Street Classifications Map
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 6
SITE EVALUATIONS
Surveys Conducted 04-01-2019
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
69
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 7
INTRODUCTION
Four “Levels of Acceptability”were determined from an analysis of the site observations and survey
results: Excellent, Good, Moderate and Poor.
Excellent acceptability is obtained by providing sufficient and appropriate lighting on the roadway,while
also providing adequate vertical illumination to allow for object detection and facial recognition. The
lighting in this location will be relatively uniform,free of direct glare and properly illuminates the roadway
and sidewalk.
Good acceptability indicates that the lighting in the area feels comfortable.In some cases, such as
residential areas,the light level might be lower than the IES Recommended Practice but the lack of glare
and shadowing from surrounding landscaping, along with some surrounding surface brightness, creates a
comfortable nighttime environment without light trespass.
Moderate acceptability is often seen in locations that do not provide enough light on the roadway or on
the sidewalk. The color of the light may be inconsistent and sources may be glary resulting in a
uncomfortable space.Some of these sites were shadowed due to trees and lighting was not appropriately
spaced.
Poor acceptability occurs when the luminaires are spaced too far apart to provide adequate light levels
and uniformity or there are no luminaires on the street at all. These sites included residential areas
without sufficient light,industrial sites and an arterial road where lights were malfunctioning.
These levels of acceptability provide an understanding of the nighttime environments found throughout
the city.This allows a variety of lighting improvement options to be developed. These future lighting
options will enhance the nighttime safety and security around the city.Each option will focus on improving
light levels, uniformity,and wayfinding while reducing glare.
70
0
E
.
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n
D
a
y
t
i
m
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
70
0
E
.
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n
N
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
70
0
E
.
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n
H
i
g
h
-Dy
n
a
m
i
c
R
a
n
g
e
This Salt Lake City Street Lighting Study provides an understanding of the current
street lighting in seventeen different locations throughout the city. The sites were
surveyed by representatives from each of the seven council districts,as well as Salt
Lake City representatives from the Police,Fire,Engineering,City Planning,
Sustainability, Transportation,and Urban Forestry departments.
The sites were selected based on street type,arterial, collector,or residential,and on
their surrounding environments in the city,industrial, commercial, transit or residential.
The selected sites will help provide a collective understanding of the lighting and
environmental conditions found throughout the city.This study and the Street Lighting
Masterplan are limited to streets,sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the Public Right of
Way and do not include any privately owned lighting. The seventeen sites surveyed
asked about the street and sidewalk lighting conditions. Those sites included:
Establishing Levels of AcceptabilitySite Observations
Example of Good Residential Lighting Example of Poor Residential Lighting
Each site was photographed using High Dynamic Range photography techniques and
lighting measurements were recorded for the streets and sidewalks. Both horizontal and
vertical illuminance (the amount of light reaching a surface) measurements were taken
along the sidewalk. Luminance (the amount of light on a surface that the eye perceives)
measurements were taken along the roadway to provide an understanding of roadway
brightness at each site. These measured light levels were used to compare the existing
light levels to the light level recommendation from the IES Recommended Practice for
Roadway Lighting (RP-8-18).Clanton & Associates also took high-dynamic-range (HDR)
images as a visual representation of the perceived nighttime experience.An example,of
the images taken,is shown to the left.
After measurements were taken,the Advisory and Technical Committee were broken
into two groups and taken on a nighttime tour of the selected sites and asked to
complete a survey assessing the lighted environment. The survey was comprised of
several subjective questions regarding the safety and aesthetics of each site. The survey
includes,but was not limited to, the following questions:
•It would be safe to walk here, alone, during daylight hours.
•It would be safe to walk here, alone, during darkness hours.
•The light is uneven (patchy).
•The light sources are glaring.
•The lighting is poorly matched to the neighborhood.
Participants answered each question with a ranking between Strongly Agree and
Strongly Disagree. The answers to each question were combined to provide an
understanding of each site. Participants surveyed 11 different sites featuring arterial,
collector and residential streets in industrial, commercial and residential areas.
1.Sterling & American Beauty Dr.
2.600N & Riverside Park
3.Redwood Road & South Temple
4.700S & Post Street
5.900W & Dalton Ave
6.Glendale Dr. & Navajo St
7.Jay St & 1st Ave
8.800E & South Temple
9.200S & Floral St
10.650S & Main Street
11.700E & Harrison Ave
12.9th & 9th
13.Layton Ave & West Temple
14.1500S & Yale
15. 19
th E & Sunnyside
16.1400E & Redondo
17.1000E & 2100S
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 9
LIGHTING MEASUREMENTS AND SUBJECTIVE SURVEY SUMMARY
Site # Site Name Street Classification Existing
Lighting
Sterling & American
Beauty Dr.
Local / Residential Excellent
Riverside Park &
600N
Arterial / Park Acceptable
Redwood Rd &
South Temple
Collector / Industrial Poor
700S & Post Street Local / Residential Poor
900W & Dalton Ave Arterial / Residential Acceptable
Glendale Dr. &
Navajo St
Collector / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
J St & 2nd Ave Local / Residential Poor
800E & South
Temple
Arterial / Commercial Excellent
200S & Floral St Arterial / Commercial Excellent
650S & Main St Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
700E & Harrison
Ave
Arterial / Residential Poor
9th & 9th Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
Layton Ave & West
Temple
Local / Residential Moderate
1500S & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable
19th E & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
1400E & Redondo Local / Residential Moderate
1000E & 2100S Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
1
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
4
17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SLC Public Utilities
Excellent Site
Acceptable Site
Moderate Site
Poor Site
1000 North
I-80
Re
d
w
o
o
d
R
o
a
d
South Temple
400 South
900 South
1300 South
1700 South
Sunnyside Avenue
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
D
r
i
v
e
13
0
0
E
a
s
t
70
0
E
a
s
t
St
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
I-
1
5
90
0
W
e
s
t
1
2
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
Site # Site Name Street
Classification
Existing
Lighting
Sterling & American
Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent
Riverside Park
& 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable
Redwood Rd.
& South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor
700 South
& Post Street Local / Residential Poor
500 West & Dalton
Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable
Glendale Dr. &
Navajo St.
Collector / Residential
/ Commercial Moderate
J St. & 2nd Ave.Local / Residential Poor
800 East & South
Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent
200 South & Floral St.Arterial / Commercial Excellent
650 South & Main St.Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
700 East & Harrison
Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor
900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
Layton Ave. & West
Temple Local / Residential Moderate
1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable
19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate
1000 East & 2100
South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
70
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0
Site 17
Site 15
Site 13
Site 11
Site 09
Site 07
Site 05
Site 03
Site 01
Summary of Surveys
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
-10.0-8.0-6.0-4.0-2.00.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.018.020.0
Si
t
e
1
7
Si
t
e
1
6
Si
t
e
1
5
Si
t
e
1
4
Si
t
e
1
3
Si
t
e
1
2
Si
t
e
1
1
Si
t
e
1
0
Si
t
e
0
9
Si
t
e
0
8
Si
t
e
0
7
Si
t
e
0
6
Si
t
e
0
5
Si
t
e
0
4
Si
t
e
0
3
Si
t
e
0
2
Si
t
e
0
1
Survey Evaluations w/ Percent of Critiera Site Score
% From Criteria
Site # Site Name Street Classification Existing
Lighting
Sterling & American
Beauty Dr.
Local / Residential Excellent
Riverside Park &
600N
Arterial / Park Acceptable
Redwood Rd &
South Temple
Collector / Industrial Poor
700S & Post Street Local / Residential Poor
900W & Dalton Ave Arterial / Residential Acceptable
Glendale Dr. &
Navajo St
Collector / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
J St & 2nd Ave Local / Residential Poor
800E & South
Temple
Arterial / Commercial Excellent
200S & Floral St Arterial / Commercial Excellent
650S & Main St Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
700E & Harrison
Ave
Arterial / Residential Poor
9th & 9th Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
Layton Ave & West
Temple
Local / Residential Moderate
1500S & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable
19th E & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
1400E & Redondo Local / Residential Moderate
1000E & 2100S Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
1
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
4
17
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
71
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : Sterling & American Beauty Dr
Local / Residential
1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Sterling & American Beauty Dr
13
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Local Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.4 0.1 0.3
Ave/Min 4 -6
Site 1 Average 0.2 0.0 0.1
Ave/Min 5.9 -1.9
Surveyed by: Group 1
1
1
Level of Acceptability: Excellent (Lighting Score = 17.5)
Sterling Dr is in Tier 1 of the Enhanced Lighting Program with acorn lights spaced at intersections and mid block.
Initial Site Observations
•Local Residential street in Rose Park neighborhood.
•Part of Enhanced Lighting Program Tier 1.
•Adjacent to Rose Park Elementary School
Lighting Measurements
•Street lighting does not meet criteria for a local road with a low pedestrian conflict.
•Low vertical light levels make it difficult for cars to identify pedestrians and objects in the roadway.
Participant Survey
•Participants said:
•“Great lighting for a residential area.”
•“This is nice lighting. A model for rest of city “
% From Criteria:
-36% Below
Site : Sterling & American Beauty Dr
Local / Residential
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
72
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : Riverside Park @ 600N
Arterial / Park
2
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Riverside Park @ 600N
15
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.9
Ave/Min 4 -3
Site 2 Average 0.5 0.0 1.0
Ave/Min 15.8 -1.9
Surveyed by: Group 1
2
2
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 9.8)
600N is lit with LED luminaires in a staggered arrangement and meets roadway lighting criteria.
Initial Site Observations
•This is a wide arterial road with heavy traffic from commuters and shipping.
•This site is located between Riverside Park and Backman Elementary School.
•Street lights are LED and arranged in a staggered arrangement.
Lighting Measurements
•This street meets the roadway luminance criteria for an arterial street with a medium pedestrian conflict.
•Horizontal illuminance on the sidewalks meets criteria, but vertical illuminance does not.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt the amount of light was good, however the style and color does not match the neighborhood.
•Participants found the light the be slightly glaring
% From Criteria:
14% Above
Site : Riverside Park @ 600N
Arterial / Park
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
73
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : Redwood Rd & S Temple
Collector / Industrial
3
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Poor (Lighting Score = -2.9)
S. Temple is lit with HPS luminaires in a staggered arrangement and does not meet roadway criteria.
Initial Site Observations
•This site is an industrial part of town next to a ABF Freight.
•There is no sidewalk on either side of the road and very minimal pedestrian traffic.
•S. Temple dead ends at private property to the east.
Lighting Measurements
•The street is under lighted and does not meet roadway criteria.
•The are currently no sidewalks, and light does not meet the edge of roadway where pedestrians would be
walking.
Participant Survey
•Participants were very uncomfortable with this site.
•Participants did not feel safe on this site during the day or night, due to the industrial location.
•Participants felt that there was not enough light at this site.
17
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.4
Ave/Min 6 -4
Site 3 Average 0.1 0.0 0.2
Ave/Min 1.3 -2.3
Surveyed by: Group 1
3
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Redwood Rd & S Temple
% From Criteria:
-54% Below
Site : Redwood Rd & S Temple
Collector / Industrial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
74
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : 700S Post Street
Local / Residential
4
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 19
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Local Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.3
Ave/Min 6 -6
Site 4 Average 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ave/Min ---
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
700S Post Street
4
4
Level of Acceptability: Poor (Lighting Score = -1.8)
700S is an extremely wide residential street with cobrahead style luminaires at intersections.
Initial Site Observations
•700S is an extremely wide residential street and was described by one resident as an “air strip.”
•The streets in this area are lit by HPS luminaires located at intersections. Current luminaires are not capable
of providing light across the wide intersections.
Lighting Measurements
•This street is dark and only lit by passing cars.
•There is no light on sidewalks except directly below luminaires.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt uncomfortable in this location at night, but very safe during the day, which indicates additional
lighting could be helpful.
•They felt strongly that there was not enough light on the roadway or sidewalk and were not able to identify
faces and colors.
% From Criteria:
-97% Below
Site : 700S Post Street
Local / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
75
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : 900W & Dalton Ave
Arterial / Residential
5
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 5.2)
900W is an arterial street lit by HPS luminaires in a staggered arrangement.
Initial Site Observations
•This is a 5 lane arterial road next to Jordan Park.
•Luminaires are LED and are in a staggered arrangement.
•Sidewalks are separated from roadway by landscaping, but have sufficient horizontal illuminance.
Lighting Measurements
•Heavy traffic while measurements were being taken contributed to light levels.
•Roadway luminance measurements meet criteria, but street feels slightly underlit.
•Sidewalk horizontal criteria is met, but vertical illuminance is low.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the lighting was patchy and that trees obstructed light from hitting the sidewalks.
•Overall they felt that this wide street had good coverage, however light sources appeared glaring.
•Participants were split over if the sidewalks were sufficiently lit or not.
21
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.6
Ave/Min 6 -3.5
Site 5 Average 0.3 0.0 1.4
Ave/Min 2.9 -5.1
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
900W & Dalton Ave
5
5
% From Criteria:
137% Above
Site : 900W & Dalton Ave
Arterial / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
76
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : Glendale Dr. & Navajo St
Collector / Residential / Commercial
6
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 2.7)
Glendale Dr. is lit by HPS lights and also sees major contribution from nearby private lighting.
Initial Site Observations
•This is a residential/commercial area near the US Dream Academy and a Church.
•The street lighting is located midblock and at intersections, but private lighting from parking lots contribute to
light on the street and sidewalk.
•Building mounted lights are glaring and shine into residences across the street.
Lighting Measurements
•The roadway is under lighted, even with contribution from private lighting.
•The horizontal and vertical illuminance on the sidewalk does not meet criteria.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the lighting was patchy with different types and colors and several dark areas.
•Overall they were split over the nighttime conditions.
23
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.6
Ave/Min 4 -3.5
Site 6 Average 0.2 0.0 0.2
Ave/Min 1.5 -1.7
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Glendale Dr. & Navajo St
6
6
% From Criteria:
-60% Below
Site : Glendale Dr. & Navajo St
Collector / Residential / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
77
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Both Groups
Site : Jay St & 1st Ave
Local / Residential
7
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Poor (Lighting Score = -0.3)
2nd Ave is residential street lit by a single HPS luminaire at each intersection.
Initial Site Observations
•This site is located in a residential neighborhood adjacent to a Church.
•Sidewalks are separated from the road by landscaping and feel dark. Large trees shadow the sidewalks.
•Sidewalk adjacent to the Church has light contribution from parking lot lighting.
Lighting Measurements
•The luminance on 2nd Ave does not meet criteria for a local street, but the lighting layout is in accordance with
the current SLC Street Lighting Masterplan.
•Sidewalks are dark and do not have any light, except directly below luminaire.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the street light only sufficiently illuminates the intersection. The remaining roadway and the
sidewalks are dark.
•Participants were split on nighttime safety and comfort levels.
25
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Local Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.3
Ave/Min 6 -6
Site 7 Average 0.1 0.0 0.1
Ave/Min 9.9 -3.3
Surveyed by: Both Groups
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Jay St & 1st Ave
7
7
% From Criteria:
-67% Below
Site : Jay St & 1st Ave
Local / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
78
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Both Groups
Site : 800E & S. Temple
Arterial / Commercial
8
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Excellent (Lighting Score = 13.9)
S. Temple is lit using LED Acorn style luminaires arranged in an opposite arrangement.
Initial Site Observations
•S. Temple is a 4 lane arterial road connecting downtown, the avenues and the University.
•This is a commercial area with a restaurants, condominiums and businesses nearby.
•Sidewalks are separated from the street by landscaping and are shadowed by large trees. Additional pedestrian
lights are placed at crosswalks.
Lighting Measurements
•Heavy traffic while measurements were being taken contributed to light levels.
•Roadway luminance far exceeds criteria, but light levels felt appropriate for this street.
•Sidewalks are slightly below criteria, and there is some light contribution from nearby businesses.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the lighting at this sight was better than other similar site throughout the city.
•Participants were split on light levels. Some felt it was too bright, while others desired slightly more light.
27
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.9
Ave/Min 4 -3
Site 8 Average 0.4 0.1 1.5
Ave/Min 3.0 -1.8
Surveyed by: Both Groups
8
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
800E & S. Temple
8
% From Criteria:
65% Above
Site : 800E & S. Temple
Arterial / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
79
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Both Groups
Site : 200S Floral St
Arterial / Commercial
9
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Excellent (Lighting Score = 13.8)
200S is an arterial road running through the heart of downtown with cactus style poles.
Initial Site Observations
•This site is in the heart of downtown SLC nearby multiple bars and restaurants.
•Cactus style poles are closely spaced on both sides of the road.
•There is a large, non signalized, mid block crosswalk across 200S.
Lighting Measurements
•The roadway essentially meets criteria at this site and feels comfortable.
•The cactus poles use acorn style luminaires that provide good vertical illuminance on pedestrians.
•This site is essentially meets all criteria.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the lighting at this site was better then similar areas throughout the city.
•Participants felt that the light sources were glaring and light could be better directed toward the street.
•Participants also felt that the light fixtures meet the character of the area, but there are too many of them.
29
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.9
Ave/Min 4 -3
Site 9 Average 0.8 0.5 0.8
Ave/Min 4.2 -1.7
Surveyed by: Both Groups
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
200S Floral St
9
9
% From Criteria:
-8% Below
Site : 200S Floral St
Arterial / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
80
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Both Groups
Site : 650S Main Street
Arterial / Commercial
10
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 6.3)
Main St. is a collector street with a shared transit line, lit with LED luminaires in a staggered arrangement.
Initial Site Observations
•Main St. is shared by both vehicles and the TRAX line.
•North and Southbound lanes are separated by a large landscape median that supplies power for TRAX.
•Sidewalks are separated from the road by landscaping and are shaded by large trees.
Lighting Measurements
•The roadway exceeds criteria. Luminaires used are glaring.
•Sidewalk essentially meets criteria, but have significant contribution from private lighting.
•Overall, this site is well lit.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the trees blocked a lot of light to the sidewalks which caused the light to be uneven.
•Overall, participants felt that the roadway was sufficiently lighted.
31
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.6
Ave/Min 4 -3.5
Site 10 Average 0.4 0.1 1.3
Ave/Min 2.5 -1.6
Surveyed by: Both Groups
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
650S Main Street
10
10
% From Criteria:
116% Above
Site : 650S Main Street
Arterial / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
81
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : 700E Harrison Ave
Arterial / Residential
11
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Poor** (Lighting Score = -2.1)
700E is a large arterial road spanning the whole Salt Lake valley with heavy traffic.
Initial Site Observations
•700E is a 7 lane arterial road with heavy commuter and shipping traffic, along with bike lanes that runs
throughout the whole valley.
•The site is adjacent to Herman Franks Park and Liberty Park.
•The roadway is lit using LED luminaires in a staggered arrangement.
Lighting Measurements
•The roadway exceeds lighting criteria, but luminance levels feel appropriate for this size of street.
•Light on the sidewalk does not meet horizontal or vertical illuminance criteria, but heavy traffic provides
additional light.
Participant Survey
•**Lights on the west side of the roadway were not operational during surveys.**
•Overall, participants felt this site was dark and was worse than similar sites throughout the city.
33
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.9
Ave/Min 4 -3
Site 11 Average 0.2 0.0 1.6
Ave/Min 1.7 -4.6
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
700E Harrison Ave
11
11
** % From Criteria:
78% Above
Site : 700E Harrison Ave
Arterial / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
82
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : 9th & 9th
Arterial / Commercial
12
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 10.1)
900S is a collector street in a commercial area with by pedestrian style luminaires
Initial Site Observations
•9th & 9th is a bustling commercial area and a destination in Salt Lake.
•The streets and sidewalks are lit mostly by pedestrian style luminaires along with cobra heads mounted on
signal poles.
•Landscaping and on street parking separate the sidewalk from the roadway.
Lighting Measurements
•Overall, this site meets or exceeds the lighting criteria.
•The roadway luminance exceeds the target criteria, but luminance levels feel appropriate on the street.
•Sidewalk horizontal and vertical illuminance criteria is met.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that this site was appropriately lit and was better than similar sites throughout the city.
•Participants noted that lighting could be better controlled and less glaring.
•Participants liked the style of lighting for the neighborhood character.
35
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.6
Ave/Min 4 -3.5
Site 12 Average 0.5 0.3 1.2
Ave/Min 5.6 -2.0
Surveyed by: Group 1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
9th & 9th
12
% From Criteria:
101% Above
Site : 9th & 9th
Arterial / Commercial12
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
83
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Both Groups
Site : Layton Ave & W Temple
Local / Residential
13
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 3.6)
West Temple is a collector road passing through residential area lit with HPS Luminaires along one side of the road.
Initial Site Observations
•West Temple is a 2 lane collector road passing through a residential area lit with HPS lights along the east side
of the road.
•Large, dense trees block most of the light from hitting the roadway or sidewalk.
Lighting Measurements
•Due to the large trees, most of the light does not reach to ground, causing the roadway and sidewalks to be
under lighted.
•Sidewalks feel dark is dramatic shadowing from trees.
Participant Survey
•Participants were split on how appropriate the roadway and sidewalk lighting was.
•Participants were also split on nighttime safety and comfort levels at this site.
•Overall, this is a very polarizing site.
37
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.4
Ave/Min 6 -4
Site 13 Average 0.1 0.0 0.2
Ave/Min 6.5 -10.1
Surveyed by: Both Groups
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Layton Ave & W Temple
13
13
% From Criteria:
-50% Below
Site : Layton Ave & W Temple
Local / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
84
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : 1500S Yale Ave
Collector / Residential
14
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 6.0)
1500S is a collector road bordering neighborhoods with Enhanced and base level lighting.
Initial Site Observations
•This site has both cobrahead HPS lights as well as acorn style lights that are part of the Enhanced Lighting
Program.
•1500S is a collector street connecting multiple residential areas with private and enhanced street lighting.
Lighting Measurements
•The street is slightly below criteria, but feels appropriate in this area.
•Sidewalk lighting does not meet horizontal or vertical criteria.
•Overall the site does not meet criteria, but feels lighting feels appropriate to the area.
Participant Survey
•Participants were divided on if the lighting was better or worse compared to similar areas, however they did
generally agree that this street might need additional lighting.
•Overall, participants felt that this site could use additional light.
•Survey was taken in a different location than the measurements were.
39
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.4
Ave/Min 6 -4
Site 14 Average 0.2 0.0 0.3
Ave/Min 5.5 -8.4
Surveyed by: Group 1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
1500S Yale Ave
14
14
% From Criteria:
-37% Below
Site : 1500S Yale Ave
Collector / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
85
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : 19th E & Sunnyside Ave
Arterial / Residential / Commercial
15
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 2.2)
Sunnyside Ave is an arterial street connecting the residential neighborhoods with the University and Foothills.
Initial Site Observations
•This 5 lane arterial street is lit with LED lights from the north side of the road at a large spacing.
•The side borders residential neighborhoods, Sunnyside Park, a church, University housing and is a major path
into the University of Utah campus and to downtown.
•Lights are glaring and cause light trespass at residences across the street.
Lighting Measurements
•Both the sidewalk and roadway are under lighted and do not meet criteria.
•Lights are spaced too far apart and overly bright and glaring luminaires are used to help get light across and
down the street.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the lighting was insufficient on the south side of the road, due to the single-side lighting
arrangement.
•Overall, participants felt that this lighting was worse than similar areas and could use additional light.
41
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.9
Ave/Min 4 -3
Site 15 Average 0.1 0.0 0.4
Ave/Min 5.7 -2.3
Surveyed by: Group 1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
19th E & Sunnyside Ave
15
15
% From Criteria:
-55% Below
Site : 19th E & Sunnyside Ave
Arterial / Residential / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
86
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : 1400E Redondo Ave
Local / Residential
16
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 3.2)
Redondo Ave is a residential street in the Sugarhouse area with private street lighting.
Initial Site Observations
•Redondo Ave is a residential street with private acorn style street lights.
•Multiple lights along the street were burnt out or malfunctioning.
•Large trees on the street shaded most of the lights.
Lighting Measurements
•This site does not meet roadway or sidewalk criteria.
•The infrastructure for decent street lighting is present, but multiple lights were not on resulting in a dark street.
Participant Survey
•Some participants felt that the light sources were glary, and provided patchy, insufficient light coverage.
•Participants liked the style of lights, but they did not feel comfortable, and would like to see more light on the
roadway and sidewalk.
43
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Local Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.3
Ave/Min 6 -6
Site 16 Average 0.1 0.0 0.0
Ave/Min 5.3 --
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
1400E Redondo Ave
16
16
% From Criteria:
-48% Below
Site : 1400E Redondo Ave
Local / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
87
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : 1000E 2100S
Local / Commercial
17
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 12.0)
2100S is in the heart of the Sugarhouse business district and is part of the Special Assessment Lighting program
Initial Site Observations
•The site is in the middle of the Sugarhouse business district and is surrounded by commercial properties.
•The luminaires used at this site have a street light as well as two pedestrian level light sources.
•2100S is a four lane arterial road and luminaires are in an opposite arrangement.
•Acorn style luminaires are bright and slightly glaring.
Lighting Measurements
•There is a lot of light at this site and all criteria is exceeded.
•Multi-head luminaires with street and pedestrian luminaires plenty of light on the sidewalk and street.
Participant Survey
•Most participants felt that there was too much light, and that the light sources were glaring.
•Overall, participants felt safe at this location.
45
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.6
Ave/Min 4 -3.5
Site 17 Average 2.5 0.3 1.8
Ave/Min 8.2 -2.6
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
1000E 2100S
17
17
% From Criteria:
194% Above
Site : 1000E 2100S
Local / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C
88
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
89
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan
Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health
Prepared by: Travis Longcore, Ph.D.
Prepared for: Clanton and Associates, Boulder, Colorado
May 2020
Lights of Salt Lake City wash out the Milky Way viewed from Antelope Island State Park.
Photograph: Ryan Andreasen.
90
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Potential Impacts of Streetlights on Wildlife in Salt Lake City .............................................. 4
2.1 Physical Geography ........................................................................................................ 4
2.1.1 Great Salt Lake Shorelands ..................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Jordan River ............................................................................................................ 7
2.1.3 Urban Creeks .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.4 Wasatch Mountains ................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Effects of Lighting on Key Wildlife Groups ................................................................ 10
2.3.1 Attraction and Disorientation ................................................................................ 10
2.3.2 Loss of Connectivity ............................................................................................. 12
2.3.3 Foraging ................................................................................................................ 13
2.3.4 Interference with Visual Communication ............................................................. 14
2.3.5 Physiological Responses ....................................................................................... 14
3 Consideration of Spectrum in Municipal Street Lighting Systems ...................................... 16
3.1 Effects on Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 16
3.2 Effects on Dark Skies .................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Human Circadian Rhythms ........................................................................................... 22
4 Design Strategies for a Healthy Nocturnal Infrastructure ..................................................... 27
4.1 Systemwide Approaches ............................................................................................... 27
4.1.1 Need-based Lighting ............................................................................................. 27
4.1.2 Shielding and Directionality ................................................................................. 27
4.1.3 Intensity, Dimming, and Controls ......................................................................... 27
4.1.4 Spectrum ............................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Ecological Overlay Strategies ....................................................................................... 30
4.2.1 Bird Collision Zone............................................................................................... 32
4.2.2 Critical Wildlife Habitat Zone .............................................................................. 32
4.2.3 Jordan River and Urban Creeks ............................................................................ 33
4.2.4 Community Parks and Natural Lands ................................................................... 33
5 References ............................................................................................................................. 34
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
91
1
1 Introduction
Salt Lake City is located in a region connected to its night sky. The awe and wonder inspired by
a view of the Milky Way and sky overflowing with stars attracts visitors to Utah and contributes
to the identity of the region for residents. Salt Lake City itself is brightly illuminated, with its
cultural and institutional centers, commercial zones, and unique urban design. But just north of
the city, Antelope Island State Park has sought and received recognition as a Dark Sky Park by
the International Dark-Sky Association,
joining eight other Dark Sky Parks, a Dark
Sky Community, and a Dark Sky Heritage
Place in Utah (Figure 1). The future of
Antelope Island’s long-term status as a
Dark Sky Park depends on the decisions of
the cities along the Wasatch Front in
protecting the night sky (see cover).
Cities set the tone for night lighting in a
region. They are the most brightly lit, and
their size influences the markets, practices,
and professionals in a region. Commercial
zones of cities and towns tend to
contribute the most light escaping upward
(and therefore wasted), along with lighted
sports fields when they are illuminated
(Luginbuhl et al. 2009). Historically,
street lights contributed a significant and
constant amount to both useful and wasted
light through the night, while residential
lights and lighting from vehicles declines
substantially through course of the night
(Bará et al. 2017). Within residential
zones, most of the light is from the
streetlighting system, especially later in the evening when traffic rates are low and ornamental
lighting is switched off (Bará et al. 2017). Decisions made at municipal level about its street
lighting system therefore have a large contribution to the overall amount of useful and wasted
light in a city. Because perception of lighting is based on contrasts (the same light appears dim
next to a brighter source and bright next to a dimmer source), the decisions made in terms of
municipal street lighting systems have ramifications to the nocturnal environment that extend
beyond the system itself. As a metropolitan area, compared with the 125 largest metropolitan
areas in the United States, Salt Lake City is well above average in terms of the average amount
of light escaping upward that can be measured by satellites (Figure 2). It does not waste as much
light as other larger cities with their greater areas, but on a per area basis it contributes more to
regional light pollution than the average city, although not so much as New Orleans, which is a
similar size.
Figure 1. Distribution of recognized dark sky
places in and near Utah. Circles are Dark Sky
Parks, triangles are Dark Sky Communities, and
diamonds are Dark Sky Heritage Sites. Source:
List of Dark Sky Places maintained by Dark Skies
Advisory Group, IUCN.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
92
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
2
Figure 2. Light escaping upwards from Salt Lake City 2012–2017 within the 125 largest
metropolitan regions in the United States. Top: radiance normalized for area. Bottom: total
radiance from entire city extent. Data from VIIRS DNB as analyzed by Horton et al. (2019).
Large-scale transformations of municipal street lighting systems have occurred over the past
decade as older lighting technologies have been replaced by light emitting diode (LED) systems.
Because of the history of the technology, where the early high-efficiency LEDs had a high
content of blue light, residents of many jurisdictions objected to the new lights. The bluish-white
light of LEDs in those installations was perceived as brighter because of the visual sensitivity of
the human eye to the greater proportion of shorter (blue) wavelengths in the light produced. In
addition, when lights are more efficient and less expensive to operate, there is a tendency to use
more light (Kyba et al. 2014). Not only does the color of light affect how humans perceive the
lights; the color of lights is recognized as influencing the contributions lights have to light
pollution (Aubé et al. 2013, Kinzey et al. 2017), wildlife (Longcore et al. 2015b, Donners et al.
2018, Longcore 2018), and human health (Garcia-Saenz et al. 2018).
Researchers and engaged lighting designers are developing techniques to minimize undesirable
effects of outdoor lighting on both astronomical and ecological light pollution. These include
guidance for protected lands (Longcore and Rich 2017), recommendations for specific groups of
species (Voigt et al. 2018), and recommendations balancing human vision and wildlife impacts
(Longcore et al. 2018a). As Salt Lake City prepares a new Street Lighting Master Plan, this
research can be synthesized and applied to inform decisions about the design of the future street
lighting system that is consistent with the values embodied in the plan.
Me
a
n
R
a
d
i
a
n
c
e
Su
m
m
e
d
R
a
d
i
a
n
c
e
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
Salt Lake City
New Orleans
New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
Salt Lake City New Orleans
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Area Rank
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
93
3
This report provides guidance for minimizing the adverse impacts of unnecessary light at night
on species, habitats, and ecosystems in the development of a Street Lighting Master Plan for Salt
Lake City. The organization of the report is as follows. In the next chapter, the potential
impacts of street lighting on wildlife in Salt Lake City are reviewed, based on the published
scientific research. The following chapter explores the role of spectrum in determining the level
of impact on dark skies, circadian rhythms, and wildlife. Then, this information is synthesized in
a chapter outlining spatially explicit design strategies to reduce adverse impacts of street lighting
on sensitive biological resources within the context of the further development of Salt Lake
City’s municipal lighting system. With these strategies, Salt Lake City can build a nocturnal
infrastructure that supports ecological health by providing high-quality lighting for human safety
and well-being while protecting the night sky and nighttime environment within the city and
across the region, setting an example for others to follow.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
94
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
4
2 Potential Impacts of Streetlights on Wildlife in Salt Lake City
Street lighting has a large spatial footprint within the area of a city. For a medium-sized city like
Salt Lake City, street lighting is provided throughout its residential, commercial, and industrial
districts to different extents. In this chapter, the potential effects of this system on wildlife are
considered, which requires assessment of the geographic extent of the city.
To describe the environment potentially affected by lighting in Salt Lake City, the physical
geography and habitats of the city were described and lists of sensitive species were compiled.
Together, these natural features and species distributions can provide the background to devise
spatially explicit schemes to minimize potentially adverse effects.
Figure 3. Location of Salt Lake City within the physical geography of the region (USGS
topographic maps, 1885, from http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/).
2.1 Physical Geography
Salt Lake City is located on lacustrine terraces between the Wasatch Mountains and the Great
Salt Lake. It grew up as a central location for travel, commerce, and mining, supported by a
swath of irrigated lands extending north-south along the Wasatch Mountains. Although other
regional cities were established first (e.g., Ogden), Salt Lake City arose as the most significant
city through a confluence of its irrigation resources and its importance as a religious center.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
95
5
The growth of Salt Lake City depended in part on the array of some 35 streams that flowed
downward from the Wasatch Mountains to the rich soils of the terraces above the Great Salt
Lake (Harris 1941). These streams were not deeply incised and therefore they could be diverted
for irrigation, compared with the rivers of the region, which although larger, are incised into
canyons and consequently could not be used easily be irrigation by the white settlers in the
1840s. The climate is mild, with a long growing season extended by proximity to the Great Salt
Lake. Snow accumulation in the mountains and a long melt season made agriculture attractive
and productive within the region. The creeks flowing out of the Wasatch Mountains, City Creek,
Red Butte Creek, Emigration Creek, Parley’s Cañon Creek (now Parley’s Creek), Big
Cottonwood Creek, in turn flowed into the Jordan River, which flowed northward to debouche
through a small distributary delta into the Great Salt Lake (Figure 3). The Jordan River has a
winding, low-gradient pathway that remains to this day, dividing the territory of the city into
eastern and western halves. The eastern half is characterized by the rising terraces climbing up
toward the mountains with the remaining extents of the westward-flowing creeks, while the
western portion of the city is an almost entirely flat open plain extending toward the shore of the
Great Salt Lake (Figure 3).
These features of the physical geography of Salt Lake City are a useful organizing framework to
discuss zones that remain important to the ecology and sensitive species of the City today: 1) the
Salt Lake shorelands, 2) the Jordan River, 3) the urban creeks, and 4) the Wasatch Mountains.
Figure 4. Example of the open landscape of the Great Salt Lake shorelands. Photo from Google
Local Guide Neil Martin, looking due east toward Salt Lake City.
2.1.1 Great Salt Lake Shorelands
The shorelands surrounding the Great Salt Lake extend far into the City limits of Salt Lake City.
The airport and western commercial and industrial areas extend into this zone. These flat, open
areas are made up of deep lacustrine sediments of clay and loam (Flowers 1934). Although the
vegetation changes by zones extending away from the lake, the plains and ponds within them
tend to be saline, which leads to a flora free from trees and dominated by low succulent herbs
and low shrubs, such as pickleweed, salt bush, salt grass, and seepweed (Flowers 1934). Open
habitats such as these (Figure 4) are vulnerable to disruption by light pollution because light
encounters no barriers and even a single unshielded streetlight can be seen from a great distance
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
96
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
6
(De Molenaar et al. 2006, Longcore and Rich 2017). Birds in landscapes like this can be
influenced by the direct glare from streetlights and will locate nests farther from lights when
such sites are available (De Molenaar et al. 2006).
These shoreland ecosystems are extremely important to shorebirds for foraging and breeding.
The brine shrimp and salt flies that feed on algae in and around the lake provide food and the
undisturbed open areas are used by Snowy Plovers, American Avocets, Black-necked Stilts,
Long-billed Curlew, and dozens of other shorebird and waterbird species (Jones 2008). A
portion of this area with Salt Lake City has been established and managed as the Inland Sea
Shorebird Reserve by Rio Tinto/Kennecott as mitigation for impacts from its nearby mining
operations. They took advantage of existing shallow depressions with soils high in clay that
naturally held water and managed the drainage system to extend inundation times and provide
high-quality bird habitat. The 3,670-acre reserve provides habitat for around 120,000 birds
annually.
The Great Salt Lake as a whole has been recognized as a site of “hemispheric importance” within
the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Network (Andres et al. 20016). Nearly all the western
shorelands with Salt Lake City have been designated as Very Important Bird Areas (IBAs) by
Birdlife International. They are the Gilbert Bay/South Arm IBA and the Farmington Bay IBA,
which each extend into and cover the undeveloped reaches of the shorelands. These IBAs are of
global importance (the highest possible ranking).
Figure 5. Extent of globally significant Important Bird Areas (blue) in Salt Lake City with City
Council districts (red) for reference.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
97
7
Figure 6. Example of the vegetation of the Jordan River as it winds through Salt Lake City.
Image from Google Local Guide Ross Pincock.
2.1.2 Jordan River
The Jordan River is a low-gradient, meandering river that
flows north to south through Salt Lake City. Considerable
development has affected the banks and floodplain, but
recent years have brought attention and restoration efforts to
enhance the river, its habitats, and its water quality.
The Jordan River supports riparian (streamside) habitats that
are used for nesting by neotropical migratory bird such as
Bullock’s Oriole, Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-breasted
Chat, all of which nest along the Jordan River and then
migrate to Central America for the winter.
The Tracey Aviary conducts surveys and nest monitoring
along the Jordan River and birding hotspots along the river
include Glendale Golf Course, Jordan River Parkway (200 S
to 2100 S), Fife Wetlands Preserve, and Rose Park Golf
Course.
2.1.3 Urban Creeks
Salt Lake City has a series of creeks that flow down from the
Wasatch Mountains and cut east to west across the city
toward the Jordan River (Figure 7). Over time, the lower
extents of these creeks have been undergrounded, cutting off
the surface flows and diverting them to underground pipes.
For example, City Creek, was undergrounded along North
Temple Street in 1909 (Love 2005). These creeks have been
the focus of daylighting and restoration activities that may
Figure 7. Footprint of the
Jordan River running south to
north through the center of Salt
Lake City.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
98
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
8
extend into the future (Love 2005). Because of the water flows and support of riparian
vegetation, the remaining aboveground creeks remain important habitats for wildlife. They are
now surrounded by neighborhoods and receive heavy recreational use and provide valuable
access to nature within the urban fabric (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Image of Emigration Creek as it flows through the Wasatch Hollow Open Space. Photo
by Google Local Guide Joseph Muhlestein.
2.1.4 Wasatch Mountains
The foothills of the Wasatch Mountains to the
west of the Salt Lake City are contiguous with a
large block of contiguous open space and
wilderness area and therefore are easily
recognized as being environmentally sensitive.
One of the vulnerabilities of mountainous habitats
to light pollution is that their slopes are directly in
the light of sight for any light that is emitted
upward from nearby sources (Longcore and Rich
2017). Any light from Salt Lake City that is
emitted above the horizontal plane and directed
toward the east has the potential to degrade the
habitats of the Wasatch Mountains.
2.2 Sensitive Species
Important wildlife species of Salt Lake City were
reviewed in a 2010 program for the acquisition of
natural lands. The program identified and mapped
the distribution of critical habitat for wildlife. A
list of species for which potential habitat is found
in the City was also provided. This map identified
all parcels within the city that intersected with
areas that had potential habitat for Black Bear, Band-
Figure 9. Four urban creeks (purple)
extending out of the Wasatch Mountains
into Salt Lake City.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
99
9
tailed Pigeon, Blue Grouse, Chukar Partridge, Moose, Mule Deer, Ring-necked Pheasant, Rocky
Mountain Elk, Ruffed Grouse, or Snowshoe Hare. The resulting map forms a ring around the
core of Salt Lake City, with critical wildlife habitat extending down the slopes of the Wasatch
range to the urban edge on the east and also enveloping the shorelands and extending from the
west to and around the north of the airport (Figure 10).
The city also has potential habitat for a range of sensitive plant and wildlife species. These
species include birds of the open shorelands (Bobolink, Burrowing Owl, Long-billed Curlew,
Northern Goshawk, Short-eared Owl) those associated with the foothills and creeks (Lewis’s
Woodpecker, Three-toed Woodpecker, Greater Sage Grouse, and some found throughout (e.g.,
Ferruginous Hawk, Grasshopper Sparrow). Other sensitive wildlife species include the Smooth
Greensnake, found in the mountains, spotted bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat.
Figure 10. Distribution of parcels (green) that intersect with critical wildlife habitat, with City
Council districts for reference.
Other wildlife species, although not recognized formally as sensitive, deserve attention in a street
lighting plan intended to reduce and avoid impacts. Fireflies are known to be sensitive to light
pollution and have popular appeal as wondrous symbols of the dusk and nighttime environment
(Lloyd 2006). The Natural History Museum of Utah is collecting firefly sightings from around
the state and has reports from both north and south of Salt Lake City and a few records have
been reported from within Salt Lake City.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
100
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
10
Bats are also significantly influenced by lighting conditions. Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida
brasiliensis) are well-known to residents because they roost at West High School near downtown
during migration. Other documented species include hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus;
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/3742269). It is likely that more species and locations
for bat foraging and roosting would be documented if acoustic surveys were conducted
(O’Farrell et al. 1999).
2.3 Effects of Lighting on Key Wildlife Groups
Artificial light at night can have a range of lethal and sub-lethal effects on wildlife (Longcore
and Rich 2004, Rich and Longcore 2006, Gaston et al. 2012, Gaston et al. 2013, Meyer and
Sullivan 2013). Some wildlife species will avoid areas with additional lighting (Beier 1995,
2006, Stone et al. 2009, Stone et al. 2012) or otherwise be adversely impacted (Hölker et al.
2010a, Hölker et al. 2010b, Longcore 2010, Gaston et al. 2013).
The formally recognized sensitive species in Salt Lake City, or at least potentially present,
include large and small mammals, migratory and resident birds, bats, one reptile, and at least one
plant species. The types of disruption from lighting that could occur for these groups include
attraction and disorientation leading to injury or death, disruption of connectivity between habitat
patches, interference with predator-prey relations and circadian rhythms that influence foraging
decisions, and disruption of pollination.
2.3.1 Attraction and Disorientation
Attraction/repulsion and disorientation are possible outcomes of encounters
between wildlife and artificial light at night (Longcore and Rich 2004).
The most well-known situation is the attraction and disorientation of
hatchling sea turtles on ocean beaches, which results in the death of the
juvenile turtles that do not reach the ocean (McFarlane 1963). The two
most relevant instances of attraction and disorientation for Salt Lake City
are the impacts on migratory birds and on insects.
Migratory Birds. Research with weather radar over the past five years has dramatically improved
understanding of the influence of city lights on migrating birds. Most songbird species migrate
at night and they can be detected and mapped on weather radar. A massive trove of radar data
has been accumulated over the past 25 years and so researchers can now use those data and
powerful new computing approaches to understand the influence of lights on the migratory paths
of birds.
Light at night escaping upwards so that it can be measured by a satellite is associated with
greater numbers of birds present during the day, especially in the fall when juveniles are
migrating south (La Sorte et al. 2017). As the birds are migrating southward they are attracted to
the lights of the city and then end up disproportionately using habitats in and around cities as
compared with potentially better habitats farther from cities (McLaren et al. 2018). Lights can
rapidly increase the density of migratory birds in an area at night. A study of the Tribute in Light
installation in New York documented an increase from 500 birds within 0.5 km of the vertical
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
101
11
light beams before they were turned on to 15,700 birds within 0.5 km 15 minutes after
illumination (Van Doren et al. 2017).
Attraction at night is only the first hazard. Urban habitats and especially business districts are
quite hazardous to these birds because once they are on the ground, they are susceptible to
collisions with glass, which they do not perceive as a barrier (Klem 1990, Sheppard and Phillips
2015). The combination of night-time lights followed by daytime glass exposure is a significant
threat to songbirds during the already strenuous migratory period (Cabrera-Cruz et al. 2018).
Radar data have been used to track the relative exposure of migratory birds to lights within U.S.
metropolitan areas ranked by area. The Salt Lake City–West Valley City urban area ranks 74th in
area among cities in the continental US by area. When evaluated for the number of migrating
birds based on radar tracking (average for 1995–2017) and the intensity to light as measured by
the VIIRS DNB satellite (average for 2012–2017), the city ranks 120th in exposure for the spring
and 112th in exposure for the fall (Horton et al. 2019) (Figure 11). Other cities have far more
migratory birds flying overhead per unit area. For example, New Orleans has many more birds
flying overhead because of its location on the Gulf Coast, where all of the birds heading to the
northern forests and back again to Central and South America funnel overhead.
Figure 11. Relative exposure of migrating birds to light in Salt Lake City within the 125 largest
metropolitan regions in the United States (Horton et al. 2019). Salt Lake City has relatively
fewer migratory bird species overhead during migration than other similarly sized metropolitan
regions.
Even though the relative exposure is low compared with other similar-sized cities, birds are
attracted to and die at the buildings of Salt Lake City. The city can take a leadership position by
reducing the amount of light escaping upward from lighting throughout the city and especially
downtown to reduce this unfortunate outcome.
Insects. Many families of insects are attracted to lights, including moths, lacewings, beetles,
bugs, caddisflies, crane flies, midges, hoverflies, wasps, and bush crickets (Sustek 1999, Kolligs
2000, Eisenbeis 2006, Frank 2006, Longcore et al. 2015a). Any lamp with significant emissions
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Fa
l
l
E
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
R
a
n
k
Salt Lake City
New Orleans
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Area Rank
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
102
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
12
in the ultraviolet or blue wavelengths is highly attractive to insects (Eisenbeis 2006, Frank 2006,
van Langevelde et al. 2011, Barghini and de Medeiros 2012). Insects attracted to lights are
subject to increased predation from a variety of predators, including bats, birds, skunks, toads,
and spiders (Blake et al. 1994, Frank 2006).
Moths are especially attracted to lights and they play a special role in the ecosystem as
pollinators. Moths are killed in collisions with the lights or by becoming trapped in housings
(Frank 1988, 2006). Short of death, this attraction removes native insects from their natural
environments (Meyer and Sullivan 2013) in what Eisenbeis (2006) calls the “vacuum cleaner
effect.” Attraction of insects by light results in significant reduction in pollination (Macgregor et
al. 2015, Macgregor et al. 2017) and this effect spills over into daytime insect communities
because of the decreased seed set and reproduction of plants (Knop et al. 2017).
Bats. The responses of different bat species to lighting are complex (Rydell 2006). Some faster-
flying and more maneuverable species will be attracted to lights, where they forage on insects
also attracted to the lights. Slower and less maneuverable species will avoid lights, essentially
being repulsed by their presence (Stone et al. 2009, Stone et al. 2012, Stone et al. 2015). Light at
the entrance of a roost can keep bats from emerging for their nightly foraging (Boldogh et al.
2007).
2.3.2 Loss of Connectivity
As is implied by the repulsion of some bat species by
nighttime lighting, the presence of permanent outdoor
lighting can severe landscape connectivity for wildlife
species (Stone et al. 2009). The existence of the lights
themselves, shielded or not, is sufficient to influence
wildlife movement (Beier 1995, 2006). This phenomenon
was illustrated by a radio telemetry study of young
mountain lions in Orange County, California (Beier 1995):
All travel in corridors and habitat peninsulas occurred at night. During overnight
monitoring, the disperser usually avoided artificial lights when in the corridor or
peninsula. For example, M12 [a juvenile mountain lion] consistently used dark areas as
he rapidly (<4 hr) traveled the grassy ridge (6.0 X 1.5 km) separating San Juan
Capistrano from San Clemente (Fig. 1). Also M12 seemed to use light cues when he
negotiated the tightest part of the Pechanga Corridor; his consistent movements in the
direction of the darkest horizon caused him to miss the only bridged undercrossing of I-
15.
Overnight monitoring showed that dispersers especially avoided night-lights in
conjunction with open terrain. On M12’s initial encounter with a well-lit sand factory and
adjacent sand pits, he took 2 hours and 4 attempts to select a route that skirted the facility,
after which he rested on a ridgetop for 2 hours. During 2 nights in the Arroyo Trabuco,
M8 explored several small side canyons lacking woody vegetation. He followed each
canyon to the ridgetop, where city lights were visible 300–800 m west. He stopped at
each canyon ridgetop for 15–60 minutes before returning to the arroyo, without moving
>100 m into the grasslands west of the ridgeline in view of the city lights.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
103
13
Further data on the use of underpasses and the influence of lighting on landscape connectivity
have been reported. An experimental evaluation of underpass use by wildlife found that for mule
deer, even nearby lights affected movement compared with a reference period (Bliss-Ketchum et
al. 2016). Research conclusively shows that artificial night lighting can have an adverse impact
on the foraging behavior of bat species, and exclude certain species from foraging routes or areas
(Stone et al. 2009, Polak et al. 2011).
2.3.3 Foraging
Small mammals respond to illumination in their foraging
activities. For example, artificial light of 0.3 and 0.1 lux reduced
the activity, movement, or food consumption of a cross-section
of rodent species (Clarke 1983, Brillhart and Kaufman 1991,
Vasquez 1994, Falkenberg and Clarke 1998, Kramer and Birney
2001). This phenomenon also has been shown in natural (in
addition to laboratory) conditions (Kotler 1984a, Bliss-Ketchum et al. 2016, Wang and Shier
2017, Wang and Shier 2018).
The driving force behind patterns of activity and foraging by animals influenced by artificial
lights is presumably predation. Additional (artificial) light might increase success of visually
foraging predators, thereby increasing risk to their prey, with one critical exception: prey species
with a communal predator defence, such as schooling or flocking, have decreased risk of
predation with additional light. Evidence for this general pattern continues to accrue. Partridge
are documented to roost closer to each other on darker nights and can see predators farther away
on lighter nights (Tillmann 2009). Some species of bats avoid artificial lights to reduce predation
risk (Stone et al. 2009, Polak et al. 2011). A general review of nocturnal foraging suggests that
night is a refuge with decreased overall predation on birds and mammals, and that foraging
groups are larger at night, especially for clades that are not strictly nocturnal (Beauchamp 2007).
Songbirds that were experimentally relocated moved back to their home ranges at night, a result
that is most consistent with predator avoidance (Mukhin et al. 2009). Pollination is determined
by foraging activities and the distribution of insect foragers, which in turn are susceptible to
attraction, disorientation, and other behavioral disruptions from artificial lights (Knop et al.
2017).
Predator-prey systems are tightly tied into lunar cycles, with many relationships affected by lunar
phase (Williams 1936, Sutherland and Predavec 1999, Topping et al. 1999, Riou and Hamer
2008, Upham and Hafner 2013). Even within species, variation in color interacts with lunar
cycle to affect foraging success. White-morph Barn Owls have an advantage foraging during the
full moon because the light reflecting off their white feathers triggers their rodent prey to freeze
in place, while Barn Owls with darker colored feathers do not have this advantage (San-Jose et
al. 2019). Light pollution can be expected to interfere with such patterns (San-Jose et al. 2019).
Predator-prey relations probably also drive the influence of artificial lighting on bird nest
location. The one experimental study of the effect of streetlights on breeding bird density shows
a negative impact (De Molenaar et al. 2006). The streetlights in De Molnenaar et al.’s study
created a maximum illumination of 20 lux (1.8 footcandles). The adverse effects of these lights
(decreased density of Black-tailed Godwit nests) were experienced up to 300 m (984 ft) from
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
104
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
14
these lights, extending into areas with negligible increased illumination, which means that the
adverse impact results from the light being visible, rather than the amount of light incident on the
sensitive receptor.
2.3.4 Interference with Visual Communication
Artificial light at night affects species such as fireflies that communicate visually at night with
light. Although the distribution of fireflies is limited within the city, their recovery could be a
laudable urban conservation goal. Artificial light washes out the signals that fireflies use for
communication and is potentially contributing to the decline of fireflies and other organisms that
rely on bioluminescent communication (Lloyd 2006, Hagen and Viviani 2009, Viviani et al.
2010, Bird and Parker 2014). A Brazilian study documented lower species richness of fireflies
in areas of 0.2 lux and greater (even from sodium vapour lamps, which are otherwise considered
to be more wildlife friendly), except for those few species that naturally fly at greater
illumination (Hagen and Viviani 2009).
2.3.5 Physiological Responses
Birds. The research on the effects of ambient and artificial
lighting on bird reproduction goes back to the 1920s (Rawson
1923, Rowan 1938). Birds can be extremely sensitive to
illumination, and extension of foraging by species under artificial lights is documented in the
literature (Goertz et al. 1980, Sick and Teixeira 1981, Frey 1993, Rohweder and Baverstock
1996). Research shows an earlier start to seasonal breeding of birds in urban (lighted)
environments than rural (dark) environments (Havlin 1964, Lack 1965). Many of the
physiological impacts of lighting on birds are reviewed by De Molenaar et al. (2006) and
Longcore (2010).
• Dawn song in American Robins (Turdus migratorius) is influenced by ambient
illumination (Miller 2006);
• Dawn song and lay date in a songbird have been shown to be associated with proximity
to streetlights, with evidence that this affected mate choice, which has implications for
fitness (Kempenaers et al. 2010);
• Light of 0.3 lux can move reproductive seasonality of songbirds by a month and cause
irregular molt progression (Dominoni et al. 2013a, Dominoni et al. 2013b);
• Light is a major driver of the daily activity patterns of songbirds (study animal European
Blackbird; Turdus merula), causing them to be active earlier in the morning (Dominoni et
al. 2014);
• A songbird (Tree Sparrow; Passer montanus) exposed to 6 lux in the laboratory secreted
luteinizing hormone earlier than controls, and urban birds exposed to 3–5 lux exhibited
this pattern in the field; both of these response were statistically associated with night
lighting (Zhang et al. 2014);
• Artificial light outside of nest boxes affects perceived photoperiod of Great Tits (Parus
major), which the authors interpret as creating an ecological trap (Titulaer et al. 2012);
• Artificial light rather than traffic noise affects dawn and dusk song timing in common
European songbirds (Da Silva et al. 2014).
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
105
15
Artificial night lighting affects diurnal species substantially as well. As noted above, it affects
timing of dawn and dusk song, seasonality of reproduction, mate choices, and can extend
activities of diurnal species into the night (Stracey et al. 2014). Birds that sing earliest are
responding to increases in illumination so faint that they are undetectable by humans (Thomas et
al. 2002). This is true for impacts across species, where diurnal species are affected in numerous
ways by an altered nighttime environment (Miller 2006, Kempenaers et al. 2010, Titulaer et al.
2012, Dominoni et al. 2013a, Dominoni et al. 2013b, Da Silva et al. 2014, Dominoni et al. 2014,
Zhang et al. 2014, Da Silva et al. 2015).
Mammals. Similar impacts on both seasonality and daily rhythms are documented for mammals.
For example, lighting from a military base was shown to desynchronize the breeding time of
tammar wallabies in the field in Australia, as well as to suppress nightly melatonin production
(Robert et al. 2015). Studies on the physiological effects of light at night on mammals are
abundant, partly because of the implications for understanding human health (e.g., Zubidat et al.
2007, Zubidat et al. 2010). As a whole, they show that artificial light at levels far less intense
than previously assumed are able to entrain circadian rhythms and influence physiological
functions such as immune response (Bedrosian et al. 2011). For example, extremely dim light is
sufficient to entrain rhythms in mice, and can be done without phase shifting or reducing
production of melatonin (other physiological indicators of light influence) (Butler and Silver
2011). For shorter wavelengths (blue and green) entrainment takes place at 10–3 lux. Much
greater intensity, 0.4 lux, is needed for red light to entrain rhythms (Butler and Silver 2011).
This research is consistent with recently documented differences in mice behaviour for exposure
to 20 lux vs. 1 lux at night (Shuboni and Yan 2010). Mice that were exposed to dim (5 lux) light
at night consumed the same amount of food as those under dark controls, but gained weight as a
result of the shift in time of consumption (Fonken et al. 2010).
Plants. Plants “anticipate” the dawn with a synchronized circadian clock and increase immune
defence at the time of day when infection is most likely (Wang et al. 2011). The timing of
resistance (R)-gene mediated defences in Arabidopsis to downy mildew is tied to the circadian
system such that defences are greatest before dawn, when the mildew normally disperses its
spores (Wang et al. 2011). Preliminary experiments show that carbon assimilation is lower in
trees exposed to continuous night lighting, compared with controls in a “stereotypical urban
setting” (Skaf et al. 2010). Some plants might use light-triggered circadian rhythms to
synchronize expression of anti-herbivory compounds with periods of peak herbivory, leading to
increased loss from herbivory in out-of-phase plants (Goodspeed et al. 2012). The importance of
circadian rhythms in plants, for everything from disease response and flowering time to seed
germination, and the potential for disruption by night lighting, has not been explored widely
(Resco et al. 2009, Bennie et al. 2016).
Light at night also affects the perception of seasonal change by plants and their associated
physiological responses. Exposure to light at night is associated with earlier budburst in plants in
the United Kingdom, in a pattern that cannot be explained by the greater temperatures in cities
(ffrench-Constant et al. 2016). Trees exposed to nearby lights have long been observed to hold
on to their leaves later in the fall (Briggs 2006, Škvareninová et al. 2017, Massetti 2018) and
prevent seed set in plants cued to shorter daylengths (Palmer et al. 2017).
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
106
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
16
3 Consideration of Spectrum in Municipal Street Lighting Systems
The LED revolution in outdoor lighting has created new possibilities to select the spectral
composition of lights. Unlike lighting technology of the past, such as high-pressure sodium or
metal halide lamps, the range of colors that can be deployed using LEDs is wide. As a result, it
is possible to select spectral profiles that can either reduce or increase the effects of a street
lighting system on the visibility of stars in the night sky, on human circadian rhythms, and on
wildlife (Longcore 2018).
3.1 Effects on Wildlife
This review of the effects of lighting spectrum on wildlife is drawn from my recent article
(Longcore 2018), which can be consulted for additional details.
The effects of lights of different spectral composition on wildlife depends on the responses of
different wildlife groups to those lights. A limited number of “response curves” are available
that track the response for a species or group of species to light throughout the entire visible
spectrum (and into the portion of the spectrum invisible to humans). These curves have been
developed for insects in general, bees, moths, juvenile salmon, seabirds, and sea turtles. My
colleagues and I have developed methods to compare different lamp types for their effects across
these groups (Longcore et al. 2018a).
Some patterns are clear. Insect attraction to LEDs is lower across the board when compared with
lamps that emit ultraviolet light. Both “warm” and “cold” LEDs have been compared with metal
halide and mercury vapor lamps and found to attract less than a tenth of the number of insects, a
finding that is attributable to the difference in ultraviolet emissions (Eisenbeis and Eick 2011).
Conversely, most broad-spectrum LEDs used in outdoor lighting do have a potential to adversely
impact the perception of daylength (and thus seasonality) in plants, because the peak sensitivity
of the phytochromes that detect daylength are in range of LED peak emissions for most full-
spectrum LEDs.
Several approaches are available to summarize the quality of light from different sources. One is
to use the Correlated Color Temperature (CCT). This metric, although imperfect, is widely used
in lighting design. Some jurisdictions that regulating lighting to protect species have a hard cut-
off (e.g., no light allowed < 540 nm) or measure the amount of light emitted below certain
thresholds. Another possible metric is the degree to which a light interferes with the non-image
forming photoreceptors that result in disruption in circadian rhythms in humans, because nearly
all vertebrates will have a similar response curve for suppression of melatonin production at
night. Drawing on data from Longcore et al. (2018a), the response of different wildlife groups
against these possible metrics describing spectrum were plotted (Figure 12). Across all groups,
less blue light (shorter wavelengths) resulted in lower effects. As for metrics to describe this
pattern, correlation with CCT was strong, but melanopic lux (the brightness of the light as sensed
by melanopsin) correlated the best. These results will only hold true for lamps without
ultraviolet or violet emissions, however.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
107
17
Figure 12: Relationship of modeled effect of lamps on different wildlife species or groups
(juvenile salmon, Newell’s shearwater, sea turtles, insects, and their average) with percent
emissions <530 m, % emissions < 500 nm, correlated color temperature (CCT), and melanopic
power of the lamps. Data from (Longcore et al. 2018b).
CCT is not a perfect predictor of effects on wildlife, but it is a reasonable rule of thumb that
lower CCT will be less disruptive to wildlife and we already know that it will be less disruptive
for circadian rhythms and astronomical observation (Aubé et al. 2013). The lamps with the
lowest projected influence on wildlife overall were low pressure sodium (which is being phased
out), high pressure sodium, PC amber LEDs, and filtered LEDs (Figure 13).
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
108
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
18
Figure 13: Relationship of correlated color temperature to average wildlife sensitivity with
lamps and illuminants labelled. Data from (Longcore et al. 2018b).
These results represent the predicted effects of the lamps on wildlife. To account for preferences
in outdoor lighting, another ranking was created that incorporated a penalty for low color
rendering index (CRI). Any lamp with a CRI over 75 was assumed to have adequate color
rendering, while those with lower CRI were penalized in the overall index. The resulting ranking
of lamps is notable in that low pressure sodium ranks lower because of its extremely low CRI,
while PC Amber and filtered LEDs rank the highest, balancing both lower wildlife impacts with
reasonable if not high CRIs (Figure 14).
As a rule of thumb, CCT can be used as an indicator of wildlife effects, but this may not hold
true across all applications. Migrating birds cannot orient under red light and therefore solid red
lights are to be avoided on communication towers (Longcore et al. 2008). Green light has
support for minimizing attraction of nocturnal migrant birds (Poot et al. 2008). Many other
special cases exist and would require consultation with experts on a taxonomic group or species
at risk. For the species of concern in Salt Lake City, however, including insects as indicators of
riparian health, bats, and nesting birds, lower CCT will decrease ecological impacts when
combined with other good street lighting practices (low glare, no uplight, appropriate intensity,
and only lighting when warranted).
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
109
19
Figure 14: Ranking of lighting sources that equally weights wildlife response, melanopic
response, astronomical light pollution (Star Light Index (Aubé et al. 2013)), and Color
Rendering Index. Reprinted from (Longcore et al. 2018b). Shorter bars represent a combination
of lower wildlife responses and higher CRI.
None of the effects measured with these metrics addresses the scattering of light in the
atmosphere, but tools to evaluate the effects of different spectra on astronomical light pollution
are available to do that.
3.2 Effects on Dark Skies
The introduction and widespread adoption of 4000K and greater LED streetlights poses a
significant threat to astronomical observation and the quality of the night sky as a recreational
amenity. It is well-established that the preponderance of light at shorter wavelengths found in
high color temperature LEDs scatters more in the atmosphere and if replacing high-pressure
sodium lamps with similar intensity and shielding, will result in degradation of the night sky
(Kinzey et al. 2017). The effects of the adoption of high color temperature LEDs were quickly
noticed and documented by night sky advocates, who could see the degree to which full-
spectrum white lights adversely impacted the aesthetics of the night sky when compared with
lower color temperature high-pressure sodium systems (Figure 15).
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
110
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
20
Figure 15. View eastward from Antelope Island State Park, showing visible effect of spectrum on
night sky aesthetics. Photo from park’s application to become recognized as a Dark Sky Park by
the International Dark-Sky Association (2017).
Although the U.S. Department of Energy originally paid little attention to the adverse
environmental impacts of high-color temperature LEDs, focusing instead solely on energy
savings, it has recently returned to this question and issued a report (Kinzey et al. 2017)
investigating the role of lamp spectrum in degradation of the night sky, measured as sky glow.
Rather than focusing solely on spectrum, the report investigates the influence of associated
variables that are commonly adjusted in the process of converting from older lighting technology
to LEDs. For example, it is common for older lamps to have a drop lens below the lamp that
results in a portion of the light being reflected upward, above the horizontal plane from the lamp.
It has also become increasingly common for full-spectrum LEDs (e.g., at CCT 2700–4200 K) to
be reduced in measured intensity for daytime (photopic) vision when compared with the high-
pressure sodium lamp that the LED is replacing. Such reductions in intensity result from
complaints from residents that the new LEDs, although producing the same (photopic)
illumination (in lux) as the HPS, are perceived as far brighter because they intersect more with
the sensitivity of human dark-adapted (scotopic) vision. It is therefore often possible to reduce
the intensity of LEDs (measured in photopic lux) compared with HPS and still achieve equal or
greater visibility.
The study modeled the effects of different combinations of spectrum, uplight, and intensity under
different weather conditions, human vision adaptation levels, and distance from the lights. For
the purpose of illustration, the nearby viewer results are reproduced here (Figure 16). These
results compare high-pressure sodium as the baseline, with PC Amber LED (1872 K), and 2700–
6100 K LEDs. When compared on an equal basis for other factors (same uplight and intensity),
only the PC Amber produced roughly equivalent light pollution compared with HPS and all full-
spectrum LEDs produced significantly more light pollution, especially when considering human
night vision. When both HPS and LEDs were assumed to have 0% uplight and the LEDs were
set at half the intensity of the LEDs, then LEDs with CCT < 3000 K were comparable to or
produced less light pollution than HPS. Results were similar with HPS at 2% uplight and LEDs
at 0% uplight and 50% intensity.
The take-home message of this research for the Salt Lake City street lighting master plan is that
for LED lamps lights to reduce light pollution compared with the previously common HPS
lamps, they must be 0% uplight, 50% less bright, and with a CCT of no greater than 3000 K.
The minimum impact on light pollution could be achieved with PC Amber or comparable filtered
LEDs that produce a similar CCT as HPS (~ 1800 K).
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
111
21
Figure 16. Comparison of light pollution from different LED spectral power distributions (SPDs)
with light pollution from a high-pressure sodium light (horizontal dotted red line). SPDs (see
right): SPD5: 1872 K (PC Amber), SPD6 = 2704 K, SPD7 = 2981 K, SPD8 = 3940 K, SPD9 =
4101 K, SPD10 = 5197 K, SPD11 = 6101 K.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
112
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
22
3.3 Human Circadian Rhythms
It is only in the last twenty years that the mechanism by which light affects human circadian
rhythms has been discovered (Berson et al. 2002). The human eye has non-image forming
retinal ganglion cells that detect light and perhaps contribute to perception of brightness but not
to discerning objects (Hattar et al. 2002). The pigment that detects the light is called melanopsin
and it differs in its sensitivity to light from the rods and cones that humans use for vision
(Brainard et al. 2001, Schmidt and Kofuji 2009). The peak sensitivity of melanopsin is around
480 nm, in the middle of the blue portion of the spectrum.
Evidence is strong that chronic exposure to light at night increases risk of cancer, diabetes,
obesity, and heart disease (Fonken and Nelson 2014, Bedrosian et al. 2016, Lunn et al. 2017).
The question for human circadian impacts from outdoor lighting is whether the exposures are
bright enough and whether time of exposure is sufficient to affect circadian rhythms.
Circadian rhythms can be affected by light in many pathways. The first pathway is suppression
of melatonin through exposure in the evening, especially after dusk. This exposure could be
indoors or outdoors, either in the sleeping habitat or not. Dose-response curves for light
exposure and melatonin suppression have been developed and it is the basis for the definition of
Circadian Light (Rea et al. 2010). The second pathway is through sleep disruption through
exposure to light in the sleeping habitat, even if the light levels are insufficient to suppress
melatonin. Lack of sleep and reduced long wave sleep, which is critical to recovery and repair
(Cho et al. 2016), can result from disturbance glare, as anyone ever awakened by moonlight can
attest.
It remains an open question whether indoor exposure to street lighting is of sufficient magnitude
to affect circadian rhythms directly, but recent research investigating light spectrum and cancer
risk suggests that the color of light outdoors in the vicinity of residences is an important risk
factor (Garcia-Saenz et al. 2018).
The influence of outdoor lighting on sleep has been investigated through epidemiological studies
that measure exposure using satellites, epidemiological studies using portable individual-level
measuring devices (comparing with satellite measures), and experimental studies in humans.
A set of studies from Haim, Kloog, Portnov, and colleagues provided correlational data
connecting satellite-measured light at night from the DMSP OLS system to breast and prostate
cancer, indicating a connection between outdoor lighting levels and rates of these cancers (Kloog
et al. 2008, Kloog et al. 2009a, Kloog et al. 2009b, Kloog et al. 2010, Kloog et al. 2011, Haim
and Portnov 2013). Similar studies have reinforced these findings in different populations
around the world (Bauer et al. 2013, Hurley et al. 2014, James et al. 2017).
Studies investigating sleep as the outcome also find an association with satellite-measured
outdoor lighting. For example, those in the higher exposure to light at night in South Korea as
measured by DMSP were 20% more likely to sleep less than 6 hours per night and on average
slept 30 minutes less than subjects in areas with lower outdoor lighting levels (Koo et al. 2016).
In a study in the United States, higher levels of outdoor lighting as measured by DMSP was
significantly associated with reporting < 6 hours of sleep per night, an effect that remained in
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
113
23
place even after accounting for noise and population density (Ohayon and Milesi 2016). In this
study, people who lived in the brightest areas were more likely to go to bed later, get up later,
and sleep less. They also were more likely to report that they were dissatisfied with sleep quality
or quantity and to be sleepy during the day. DMSP-measured light at night was negatively
associated with restorative long wave sleep. Importantly, this study validated that brightness in
bedrooms correlated positively with satellite-measured outdoor light (Ohayon and Milesi 2016).
Satellite-measured light at night was also associated with the use of more drugs for insomnia in a
second South Korean study (Min and Min 2018). Residents living in the lowest two quartiles of
light at night as measured by DMSP used significantly less insomnia medication, even after
accounting for age, sex, population density, income, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol
consumption, exercise, and psychiatric disease. Mean use of insomnia medication increased
with each quartile of light exposure from lowest to highest for each of three insomnia
medications (Min and Min 2018).
Most recently, a study of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study cohort in the United States
investigated sleep and exposure to light at night as measured by the DMSP satellite (Xiao et al.
2020). The highest levels of light exposure associated with 16% (women) and 25% (men)
increased probability of reporting short or very short sleep duration. Probability of reporting
short or very short sleep increased from lowest to highest quintiles of light at night in models that
adjusted for age, race, marital status, state of residency, smoking, alcohol, vigorous physical
activity, TV viewing, and median home value, population density and poverty rate at census tract
level (Xiao et al. 2020). The authors concluded that, “Taken together, these findings suggest that
the prevalence of sleep deficiency is higher in places with higher levels of LAN [Light at Night]”
(Xiao et al. 2020).
While studies using remotely sensed data detect associations between sleep disturbance,
circadian disruption, and associated diseases and light at night, others question the relationship
between outdoor lighting and indoor exposure to light at night. Leaving aside the point that
outdoor exposure to lighting can also contribute to circadian disruption, these studies focus on
relationships between indoor and outdoor exposure. Recent work confirms the relationship
between ground-level irradiance outdoors and satellite-based proxies for light at night. Using a
dataset or 515 ground-based measurements of illumination from the upper hemisphere, Simons
et al. (2020) showed that ground-based light exposure correlates highly with remotely-sensed
light (VIIRS DNB annual composite) and even more with the New World Atlas of Artificial
Night Sky Brightness (Falchi et al. 2016). This work conclusively establishes that satellite-
measured light at night is a proxy for ambient light in the environment on the ground at night, as
one would expect.
With this relationship now established (Simons et al. 2020), in retrospect the individual-level
studies of correlation between indoor light levels and satellite-measurements of light at night are
testing whether increased outdoor light levels correlate with higher indoor light levels and
documenting what those indoor levels might be. Along these lines, Rea et al. (2011) used a
Daysimeter device with a resolution of 0.1 lux and found that DMSP measurements had “no
apparent relationship” with personal-level exposure. The study concluded that outdoor lighting
could have little effect on circadian rhythms in their study population of teachers in upstate New
York, basing this conclusion on the assumption that measurable melatonin suppression would be
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
114
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
24
needed to cause sleep disruption. That is, they assume that light equivalent to a full moon
shining into a sleeping environment cannot affect sleep or circadian rhythms, which is a dubious
assumption. In a more recent Dutch study, individual-level light exposure for children was
measured indoors with a device that had a resolution of 0.1 lux (Huss et al. 2019). They found
an influence of outdoor light on indoor light during the darkest time period with a correlation of
0.31. It should be noted, however, that 94% of the children in the study had curtains that
controlled light entering the room. In a survey of lighting designers using their own light meters,
Miller and Kinzey (2018) reported measurements in a number of different contexts within
homes. At windows without drapes a maximum of 20 lux was reported, with a mean of 5 lux
and median of 0.5 lux. All of these dramatically elevated above natural conditions (a full moon
would produce 0.1–0.2 lux).
Experiments that involve exposures to light at night document illumination levels that affect
health and sleep outcomes. Sleeping under 5 lux of 5779 K light caused more frequent arousals,
more shallow sleep, and more REM sleep (at the expense of long wave deep sleep) (Cho et al.
2016). Light greater than 3 lux during the last hour of sleep was associated with weight gain in
an elderly population (Obayashi et al. 2016). In another study of an elderly population, increased
light at night and especially light at night > 5 lux was associated with 89% increased risk of
depression (Obayashi et al. 2013). Further studies indicate that elevated illumination is
associated with higher blood pressure as well, with associated excess deaths, at 3, 5, and 10 lux
exposures (Obayashi et al. 2014). Metrics of sleep quality (efficiency) were also consistently
lower with higher illumination at each category (3, 5, and 10 lux) (Obayashi et al. 2014).
Taken together, this research is consistent with a few different interpretations of the influence of
outdoor lighting on human circadian rhythms and health outcomes. It is possible that the
correlations between light at night and adverse health outcomes indicate instead variation in
another factor, such as air pollution, as suggested by Huss et al. (2019). The robustness of sleep
disruption correlations when controlling for population density, however, argues against that
interpretation (Ohayon and Milesi 2016). Xiao et al. consider this question and conclude: “[I]t
is also possible that the observed associations in our study population represent a true
relationship, but primarily driven by individuals whose ALAN exposure was more heavily
influenced by outdoor ALAN (e.g. individuals living in rooms facing bright streets and/or with
insufficient window treatments to block out light, or individuals with a high amount of nighttime
activities outside home).” Such an interpretation, that outdoor light can influence indoor
sleeping environments and associated sleep and health outcomes, is consistent with the literature
as it currently stands.
Accepting a plausible argument that outdoor lighting affects human sleep in at least some
contexts that depend on factors associated with socioeconomic status, the following areas of
concern follow for design of a street lighting system.
First, attention should be paid to minimize direct glare into windows of any habitable structure.
One cannot assume that people only sleep in bedrooms; residents challenged by housing costs
often use many rooms in apartments and houses for sleeping environments and the safest
assumption is that any room in a residence might be used for sleeping. The assumption should
also not be made that all residents have or can afford blackout shades or curtains. This becomes
an issue of environmental justice; circadian disruption is exacerbated in low income communities
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
115
25
(Xiao et al. 2020), presumably because the same amount of light results in more impact because
of a lack of capacity to block light.
Second, circadian responses that result from melatonin suppression are heavily dependent on the
spectrum of light. As light is concentrated closer to the wavelengths of peak sensitivity for
melanopsin, the intensity of light (measured in lux) required to suppress melatonin decreases
(Grubisic et al. 2019). At 424 nm, the minimum illuminance for melatonin suppression is 0.1 lux
(Souman et al. 2018). The relative impact of different lighting sources can be predicted using the
melanopic response curve (Aubé et al. 2013, Longcore et al. 2018a). To illustrate this approach,
the melanopic power of lamp sources was standardized to compare with high pressure sodium
(HPS; Figure 17). All full-spectrum LED sources have a greater potential circadian impact than
HPS, including 2200 K (1.5 times HPS), 3200 K (2.5 times HPS), and 4300 K (3 times HPS).
Figure 17. Ranking of light sources by melanopic response (i.e. potential for circadian
disruption), compared with a typical High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamp. Green colors have
equal or less melanopic response per lux, while purple colors have more melanopic response per
lux than HPS.
The sources that would have the lowest circadian impact are filtered LEDs that avoid the blue
portion of the spectrum almost entirely, or PC amber LEDs that do the same. Calculations have
not been done to compare LEDs at 50% intensity as has been done for astronomical light
pollution impacts. It is reasonable to assume that a similar result would be obtained, with a
reducing 50% in intensity for a ~3000K LED compared with HPS bringing it into parity with the
potential circadian disruption potential of HPS.
Anna's Light
LPS 18 W
AEL 75W
PC Amber Cree
74 WW CW10
74 WW CW7
150 W HPS
LLT Telescope Light
Kerosene Oil
Lumican 2251K
LSG Good Night 2016
CFL Greenlite 13 W
Iwasaki 60W
Philips AmbientLED
Cosmopolis 60W
Ceramic Metal Halide 70 W
3000K LED
A
OCTRON 32 W
Los Angeles LED
Yard Blaster
Full moon
LEDway Streetlight CW 54W
TL950
SORAA Vivid
D65
0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600%
Circadian Impact Relative to HPS
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
116
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
26
Third, planning for a healthy circadian environment should recognize high variation between
individuals in their sensitivity to light, including a 50-fold variation between people in melatonin
response to light exposure (Phillips et al. 2019). Children are more sensitive to disruption from
light at night than adults (Nagare et al. 2019). Office workers exposed only to dim light during
the day are more sensitive to disruption from light at night than those who work outside. Men
are more sensitive to light at night, including decreased “long sleep” with increased exposure
(Xiao et al. 2020). Some individuals are debilitated by the visual glare from LEDs that are not
properly directed and diffused (Ticleanu and Littlefair 2015).
A fair and equitable lighting design approach would recognize a need to accommodate the most
sensitive individuals in society in a manner that still allows lighting to achieve its goal of
providing a safe environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and people in vehicles. Because some of
the medical conditions that are exacerbated by glare may be considered disabilities, it
furthermore might be a prudent risk management step to explicitly incorporate these concerns in
design to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Published studies thus far
have not shown a decrease in traffic accidents associated with conversion to full-spectrum white
LEDs (e.g., >2700 K) (Marchant et al. 2020). Total pedestrian and cyclist deaths in Los Angeles
have increased since conversion from HPS to 3000–4300 K LEDs in 2009.1 Whatever marginal
benefits might be associated with higher CCT street lighting, they have not been sufficient to
result in significant decreases in accidents that have been documented in published studies.
Although a full cost-benefit analysis is beyond the scope of this report and should be the subject
of future research, a prudent approach to balance these human health and safety issues is to: use
the lowest CCT deemed acceptable, specify high-quality optics to ensure delivery of light on
desired surfaces instead of as glare, and avoid light trespass onto windows of any residential
property.
1 See https://la.streetsblog.org/2019/10/29/vision-non-zero-the-human-and-financial-toll-of-los-angeles-dangerous-
roads/
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
117
27
4 Design Strategies for a Healthy Nocturnal Infrastructure
With the adoption of a Street Lighting Master Plan, an opportunity arises to reduce unwanted
outcomes from outdoor lighting that might include degradation of the experience of the night sky
in the region, disruption of human circadian rhythms, and interference with behavior of sensitive
wildlife species within the city. Strategies are available to reduce these impacts, some of which
can be implemented at all locations where street lighting is warranted, and others that could be
applied in zones with sensitive resources or known adverse impacts.
4.1 Systemwide Approaches
Reducing the adverse effects of artificial light at night is a matter of ensuring that the light is
away enough for the identified need, but not more.
4.1.1 Need-based Lighting
In defining the terms under which street lighting is warranted, consideration should be given in
all instances to the threshold for need to ensure that the installation is supported by verifiable
benefits. The need for lighting at night is in part a subjective judgment based on human feelings,
so equal consideration should be given to those who are more comfortable with less light as to
those who desire more light and final determinations made through a transparent and fair process
that evaluates the costs and benefits.
4.1.2 Shielding and Directionality
For all of the reasons discussed in this report, lights should be directed toward their intended
targets (mostly roads and sidewalks) and not upwards or into other locations where sensitive
receptors might be present (e.g., bedroom windows, habitats). This consideration will usually be
built into a modern street lighting plan through specification of luminaire performance in terms
of backlight, uplight, and glare. Uplight should be assiduously avoided throughout the system.
This step alone will significantly reduce the current contribution of Salt Lake City to light
pollution in the region as viewed from the surrounding open spaces and natural lands.
4.1.3 Intensity, Dimming, and Controls
Any time a natural environment is experiencing illumination greater than the full moon (>0.1
lux), or even greater than a quarter moon (0.01 lux), one can assume that species are being
affected. This is the case because many species show lunar cycles in behavior, often driven by
predator–prey relationships that can be interrupted by elevated illumination (Price et al. 1984,
Daly et al. 1992, Upham and Hafner 2013). For example, light as dim as 0.01 lux can inhibit
foraging by small rodent species (Kotler 1984b).
Strategies that could be deployed around light intensity across the street lighting system include
setting the maximum intensity of lights lower, dimming or extinguishing lights according to a
pre-set schedule, and use of programmable and flexible controls to adjust intensity in response to
need.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
118
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
28
1. If full-spectrum LEDs are to be used (e.g., 2700K, 3000K), then the intensity must be at
least half of that measured (in lux) for high pressure sodium to avoid increased light
pollution impacts. Lower color temperature LEDs (e.g., 1800K, 2000K, 2200K) would
require testing to set the maximum operational intensity to achieve system objectives.
2. Regularly programmed dimming or shut-off is a possibility for the system. Part-night
lighting, where lights are shut off after a curfew is an improvement over whole-night
lighting for bats but not adequate to reduce all impacts (Azam et al. 2015, Day et al.
2015). For the whole system in Salt Lake City, a dimming schedule, especially for
residential areas, that reduced output from (for example) midnight to 5 a.m. seems
feasible and would reduce overall contribution to regional light pollution, reduce human
circadian disruption, and save energy.
3. Controls can be used as a complement to a lower overall intensity setting. When
additional illumination is needed, in coordination with City officials, lighting levels can
be increased during the period of the need and then reduce to the “normal” level.
Controls can also be used on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis to find the
illumination level that is most consistent with and useful within the character of the
neighborhood.
4.1.4 Spectrum
The unwanted impacts of the street lighting system would be minimized by using the lowest
possible CCT for the most lights in the system. For wildlife, human health, and preserving dark
skies, the preferable choice would be lamps with CCT <2000K. Other considerations lead to the
use of higher color temperatures in some zones, but the lower the color temperature can be kept
on average, the greater the environmental benefit.
Low CCT lights are commercially available. For example, Signify makes 1800K cobra-head
street lights (StreetView, RoadView, EcoForm, RoadStar) and decorative models as well
(Domus, MetroScape, UrbanScape, LytePro). Cyclone produces a 1800K street light, as does
Ignia Light (Figure 18). SNOC provides a 2200K light that mixes white and amber diodes, as
does Ignia Light (Figure 19). Lumican also sells a range of street light luminaires that include
1700K through 2200K. RAB lighting sells a 2000K luminaire (Triboro) to match the color of
HPS (https://www.rablighting.com/feature/led-roadway-lighting-triboro; Figure 20). Siteco sells
1750K, 1900K and 2200K street lights. CWES builds luminaire systems that use a warm white
LED and a filter to avoid blue light emissions while keeping lumens per Watt high in comparison
with 2700K and 3000K LEDs (Figure 21). Some communities in Utah are even manufacturing
their own filters to protect the night sky and the tourism industry associated with it (Figure 22).
Where full-spectrum light is desired for aesthetic reasons or other considerations, it should in no
instance exceed 3000K and preferably not 2700K. Lower CCTs should be considered for
residential neighborhoods citywide as acceptable to City officials and residents.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
119
29
Figure 18. Application of PC Amber lights by Ignia Light.
Figure 19. Demonstration of mix of white and amber diodes to produce 2200K light for a
roadway application by Ignia Light.
Figure 20. RAB application of 2000K light to match color of High Pressure Sodium lamps.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
120
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
30
Figure 21. C+W Energy Solutions provides filtered LEDs that use with a warm white LED and
filter blue light, resulting in a greenish yellow color that contrasts with yellow light of stop
lights.
Figure 22. Ivins, Utah is using filtered LEDs to protect the night sky
(https://www.kuer.org/post/fast-growing-southwest-utah-one-city-organizes-protect-night-
sky#stream/).
4.2 Ecological Overlay Strategies
In addition to systemwide strategies, which would be implemented throughout all instances of
land uses and road segment conditions (e.g., roadway type and associated land use
combinations), several ecological overlay strategies would be appropriate that recognize the
sensitive natural resources of Salt Lake City. These strategies are tailored to geographic regions
where modifications to the light specifications could be used to reduce unwanted environmental
impacts.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
121
31
Each of these strategies is based on a geographic footprint. Spatial data to delineate these
regions were either obtained from custodians of those data or digitized by hand based on aerial
photograph interpretation. These data sources include:
• Important Bird Areas (from National Audubon Society spatial data webserver);
• Bird Collision Survey Zone (digitized from map provided by Tracy Aviary);
• Parcels that intersect with Critical Wildlife Habitat (digitized from Salt Lake City open
space acquisition plan);
• Jordan River Habitat Zone (digitized from aerial photograph interpretation of natural
habitat);
• Urban Creek Zone (digitized from aerial photograph interpretation of natural habitat);
and
• Community Parks and Neighborhood Parks (from Salt Lake City spatial data webserver).
The digitized habitat zones could be revised with field checks. The purpose of these layers is
only to classify roadway lengths for lighting strategies and should not be interpreted as a precise
mapping of habitat values.
Figure 23. Zones considered for ecological lighting strategies.
A set of additional guidance to reduce impacts that are targeted to the resources in each of these
zones is proposed (Table 1).
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
122
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
32
Table 1. Strategy matrix for ecological overlay zones and major land uses.
Strategy Uplight Spectrum
(CCT K)
Dimming Part-night
lighting
Intensity
(of HPS
lumens)
Commercial /
Bird collision
zone
0.02 ≤3000 During
migration
No 50%
Critical Wildlife
Habitat
0 ≤2200K No No 50%
Community Parks
Natural Lands
0 ≤2200K No Yes 50%
Jordan River 0 ≤1900K No Yes 50%
Urban Creeks 0 ≤1900K No Yes 50%
4.2.1 Bird Collision Zone
The area which is currently monitored for bird collisions is found in the central business district.
It is also the brightest location when observing the region from space. Mortality of birds results
from the mixture of lights that attract nocturnally migrating birds with the presence of tall
buildings with large expanses of glass with which bird collide. The lights draw the birds in and
then the glass kills them (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). Current lighting in this zone includes
many decorative lights that are not yet shielded to direct light downward. The high lighting
levels provided in a commercial zone with the lack of shielding explains the brightness of this
area from above at night. Recognizing the need for lighting appropriate for a commercial
business district and its level of activities leads to a suggestion of compromise for lighting.
Rather than proposing no uplight, even reducing uplight to 2% would represent a dramatic
improvement over existing conditions. If no uplight is possible, it would be preferable. Color
temperature in this area, and other commercial zones, should be capped at 3000 K. Intensity of
lights should be set to 50% of that measured for previous high-pressure sodium lamps to account
for human sensitivity to 3000 K lights. With full controls available for the system, a dimming
program could be further implemented during peak migration periods (April/May and
September/October). If only one period is chosen, it should be fall because the fall migration
includes all of the young of the year, which are especially susceptible to collision. Such
additional dimming could be implemented either all night or after midnight or another set time.
For this area, actions on the part of the City might catalyze participation in mitigation approaches
by property managers (Light Out Salt Lake organized by the Tracy Aviary); turning lights out
inside buildings at night would further reduce attraction of birds and resulting mortality.
4.2.2 Critical Wildlife Habitat Zone
The region that intersects with parcels containing critical wildlife habitat is found in the foothills
to the east of downtown and then in the flat shorelands to the west. The western area also
includes the two globally significant Important Bird Areas. Because this zone contains a range
of land uses, including commercial, industrial, and residential areas, the proposal is to match the
low color temperature of previous lighting systems (e.g., 2000–2200 K) with full cut-off lighting
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
123
33
to reduce impacts on nearby sensitive resources. This lower temperature is especially important
near the Great Salt Lake, which is a source of fog (Hill 1988). Fog is extremely efficient at
reflecting light and recent research has shown that foggy conditions result in a 6-fold increase in
night sky brightness (a measure of light pollution) (Ściężor et al. 2012). Fog also scatters light
down into habitats. Full cut-off lighting at a low enough color temperature to allow reasonable
color rendering should balance the needs of the land uses in these zones with the sensitive
resources found there.
4.2.3 Jordan River and Urban Creeks
The Jordan River and the urban creeks cut through the street grid such that they intersect with
only a few street lights along any given segment. It might therefore be possible to minimize
impacts to these riparian zones by using low color temperature lights as street segment intersect
these zones. Two major considerations in riparian zones are insect attraction and bat impacts,
since both groups will be found at higher density in these zones. Best practices for reducing
impacts to bats (Voigt et al. 2018) include a limit on light at the edge of habitat of 0.1 lux,
avoiding direct glare into habitats, and seeking to avoid light <540 nm. A low CCT light would
minimize insect attraction (Longcore et al. 2018a). Red lights are being used in Europe to
minimize impacts to bats (Spoelstra et al. 2017) but it is not clear if red light would be acceptable
within this context.
4.2.4 Community Parks and Natural Lands
Community parks and natural lands may contain sensitive species and often have areas that are
closed after dark. Lighting surrounding them could be limited in CCT to 2200 K and lights on
roads within parks might be shut off after a curfew. Darkness in these instances can serve to
reduce unwanted activity because any lights brought into a dark park would indicate unallowable
activity. Recommendations for community parks and natural lands will probably need to be
tailored by site to accommodate variations in use, park type, and surrounding land uses. Tracy
Aviary is located in a community park and has captive birds that are kept outdoors. Reducing or
eliminating street lighting around any outdoor exclosures with captive birds is recommended for
the health of the birds.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
E
124
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
34
5 References
Andres, B., R. Clay, and C. Duncan. 20016. Shorebird species of conservation concern in the
Western Hemisphere. Western Hemispher Shorebird Reserve Network.
Aubé, M., J. Roby, and M. Kocifaj. 2013. Evaluating potential spectral impacts of various
artificial lights on melatonin suppression, photosynthesis, and star visibility. PLoS ONE
8:e67798.
Azam, C., C. Kerbiriou, A. Vernet, J.-F. Julien, Y. Bas, L. Plichard, J. Maratrat, and I. Le Viol.
2015. Is part-night lighting an effective measure to limit the impacts of artificial lighting
on bats? Global Change Biology 21:4333–4341.
Bará, S., Á. Rodríguez-Arós, M. Pérez, B. Tosar, R. C. Lima, A. Sánchez de Miguel, and J.
Zamorano. 2017. Estimating the relative contribution of streetlights, vehicles, and
residential lighting to the urban night sky brightness. Lighting Research &
Technology:1477153518808337.
Barghini, A., and B. A. S. de Medeiros. 2012. UV radiation as an attractor for insects. Leukos
9:47–56.
Bauer, S. E., S. E. Wagner, J. Burch, R. Bayakly, and J. E. Vena. 2013. A case-referent study:
light at night and breast cancer risk in Georgia. International Journal of Health
Geographics 12:23.
Beauchamp, G. 2007. Exploring the role of vision in social foraging: what happens to group size,
vigilance, spacing, aggression and habitat use in birds and mammals that forage at night?
Biological Reviews 82:511–525.
Bedrosian, T. A., L. K. Fonken, and R. J. Nelson. 2016. Endocrine effects of circadian
disruption. Annual Review of Physiology 78:109–131.
Bedrosian, T. A., L. K. Fonken, J. C. Walton, and R. J. Nelson. 2011. Chronic exposure to dim
light at night suppresses immune response in Siberian hamsters. Biology Letters 7:468–
471.
Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife
Management 59:228–237.
Beier, P. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on terrestrial mammals. Pages 19–42 in C. Rich
and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
Bennie, J., T. W. Davies, D. Cruse, and K. J. Gaston. 2016. Ecological effects of artificial light at
night on wild plants. Journal of Ecology 104:611–620.
Berson, D. M., F. A. Dunn, and M. Takao. 2002. Phototransduction by retinal ganglion cells that
set the circadian clock. Science 295:1070–1073.
Bird, S., and J. Parker. 2014. Low levels of light pollution may block the ability of male glow-
worms (Lampyris noctiluca L.) to locate females. Journal of Insect Conservation 18:737–
743.
Blake, D., A. M. Hutson, P. A. Racey, J. Rydell, and J. R. Speakman. 1994. Use of lamplit roads
by foraging bats in southern England. Journal of Zoology (London) 234:453–462.
Bliss-Ketchum, L. L., C. E. de Rivera, B. C. Turner, and D. M. Weisbaum. 2016. The effect of
artificial light on wildlife use of a passage structure. Biological Conservation 199:25–28.
Boldogh, S., D. Dobrosi, and P. Samu. 2007. The effects of the illumination of buildings on
house-dwelling bats and its conservation consequences. Acta Chiropterologica 9:527–
534.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
125
35
Brainard, G. C., J. P. Hanifin, J. M. Greeson, B. Byrne, G. Glickman, E. Gerner, and M. D.
Rollag. 2001. Action spectrum for melatonin regulation in humans: evidence for a novel
circadian photoreceptor. Journal of Neuroscience 21:6405–6412.
Briggs, W. R. 2006. Physiology of plant responses to artificial lighting. Pages 389–411 in C.
Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Brillhart, D. B., and D. W. Kaufman. 1991. Influence of illumination and surface structure on
space use by prairie deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii). Journal of Mammalogy
72:764–768.
Butler, M. P., and R. Silver. 2011. Divergent photic thresholds in the non-image-forming visual
system: entrainment, masking and pupillary light reflex. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 278:745–750.
Cabrera-Cruz, S. A., J. A. Smolinsky, and J. J. Buler. 2018. Light pollution is greatest within
migration passage areas for nocturnally-migrating birds around the world. Scientific
Reports 8:3261.
Cho, C.-H., H.-J. Lee, H.-K. Yoon, S.-G. Kang, K.-N. Bok, K.-Y. Jung, L. Kim, and E.-I. Lee.
2016. Exposure to dim artificial light at night increases REM sleep and awakenings in
humans. Chronobiology International 33:117–123.
Clarke, J. A. 1983. Moonlight's influence on predator/prey interactions between Short-eared
Owls (Asio flammeus) and deermice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology 13:205–209.
Da Silva, A., J. M. Samplonius, E. Schlicht, M. Valcu, and B. Kempenaers. 2014. Artificial night
lighting rather than traffic noise affects the daily timing of dawn and dusk singing in
common European songbirds. Behavioral Ecology 25:1037–1047.
Da Silva, A., M. Valcu, and B. Kempenaers. 2015. Light pollution alters the phenology of dawn
and dusk singing in common European songbirds. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 370:20140126.
Daly, M., P. R. Behrends, M. I. Wilson, and L. F. Jacobs. 1992. Behavioural modulation of
predation risk: moonlight avoidance and crespuscular compensation in a nocturnal desert
rodent, Dipodomys merriami. Animal Behaviour 44:1–9.
Day, J., J. Baker, H. Schofield, F. Mathews, and K. J. Gaston. 2015. Part-night lighting:
implications for bat conservation. Animal Conservation 18:512–516.
De Molenaar, J. G., M. E. Sanders, and D. A. Jonkers. 2006. Road lighting and grassland birds:
local influence of road lighting on a Black-tailed Godwit population. Pages 114–136 in
C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Dominoni, D., M. Quetting, and J. Partecke. 2013a. Artificial light at night advances avian
reproductive physiology. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
280:20123017.
Dominoni, D. M., E. O. Carmona-Wagner, M. Hofmann, B. Kranstauber, and J. Partecke. 2014.
Individual-based measurements of light intensity provide new insights into the effects of
artificial light at night on daily rhythms of urban-dwelling songbirds. Journal of Animal
Ecology 83:681–692.
Dominoni, D. M., M. Quetting, and J. Partecke. 2013b. Long-term effects of chronic light
pollution on seasonal functions of European Blackbirds (Turdus merula). PLoS ONE
8:e85069.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
E
126
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
36
Donners, M., R. H. A. van Grunsven, D. Groenendijk, F. van Langevelde, J. W. Bikker, T.
Longcore, and E. Veenendaal. 2018. Colors of attraction: modeling insect flight to light
behavior. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology
329:434–440.
Eisenbeis, G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a
rural setting in Germany. Pages 281–304 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological
Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Eisenbeis, G., and K. Eick. 2011. Studie zur Anziehung nachtaktiver Insekten an die
Straßenbeleuchtung unter Einbeziehung von LEDs [Attraction of nocturnal insects to
street lights — a study of lighting systems, with consideration of LEDs]. Natur und
Landschaft 86:298–306.
Eisesbeis, G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a
rural setting in Germany. Pages 281–304 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological
consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Falchi, F., P. Cinzano, D. Duriscoe, C. C. Kyba, C. D. Elvidge, K. Baugh, B. A. Portnov, N. A.
Rybnikova, and R. Furgoni. 2016. The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness.
Science Advances 2:e1600377.
Falkenberg, J. C., and J. A. Clarke. 1998. Microhabitat use of deer mice: effects of interspecific
interaction risks. Journal of Mammalogy 79:558–565.
ffrench-Constant, R. H., R. Somers-Yeates, J. Bennie, T. Economou, D. Hodgson, A. Spalding,
and P. K. McGregor. 2016. Light pollution is associated with earlier tree budburst across
the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
283:20160813.
Flowers, S. 1934. Vegetation of the Great Salt Lake region. Botanical Gazette 95:353–418.
Fonken, L. K., and R. J. Nelson. 2014. The effects of light at night on circadian clocks and
metabolism. Endocrine Reviews 35:648–670.
Fonken, L. K., J. L. Workman, J. C. Walton, Z. M. Weil, J. S. Morris, A. Haim, and R. J. Nelson.
2010. Light at night increases body mass by shifting the time of food intake. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 107:18664–18669.
Frank, K. D. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: an assessment. Journal of the
Lepidopterists’ Society 42:63–93.
Frank, K. D. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on moths. Pages 305–344 in C. Rich and T.
Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Frey, J. K. 1993. Nocturnal foraging by Scissor-tailed Flycatchers under artificial light. Western
Birds 24:200.
Garcia-Saenz, A., A. Sánchez de Miguel, A. Espinosa, A. Valentin, N. Aragonés, J. Llorca, P.
Amiano, V. Martín Sánchez, M. Guevara, and R. Capelo. 2018. Evaluating the
association between artificial light-at-night exposure and breast and prostate cancer risk
in Spain (MCC-Spain study). Environmental Health Perspectives 126:047011.
Gaston, K. J., J. Bennie, T. W. Davies, and J. Hopkins. 2013. The ecological impacts of
nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews 88:912–927.
Gaston, K. J., T. W. Davies, J. Bennie, and J. Hopkins. 2012. Reducing the ecological
consequences of night-time light pollution: options and developments. Journal of Applied
Ecology 49:1256–1266.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
127
37
Goertz, J. W., A. S. Morris, and S. M. Morris. 1980. Ruby-throated Hummingbirds feed at night
with the aid of artificial light. Wilson Bulletin 92:398–399.
Goodspeed, D., E. W. Chehab, A. Min-Venditti, J. Braam, and M. F. Covington. 2012.
Arabidopsis synchronizes jasmonate-mediated defense with insect circadian behavior.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
109:4674–4677.
Grubisic, M., A. Haim, P. Bhusal, D. M. Dominoni, K. Gabriel, A. Jechow, F. Kupprat, A.
Lerner, P. Marchant, and W. Riley. 2019. Light Pollution, Circadian Photoreception, and
Melatonin in Vertebrates. Sustainability 11:6400.
Hagen, O., and V. R. Viviani. 2009. Investigation of the artificial night lighting influence in
firefly (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) occurrence in the urban areas of Campinas and
Sorocaba municipalities [extended abstract]. Pages 1–2 in Anais do IX Congresso de
Ecologia do Brasil, São Lourenço.
Haim, A., and B. A. Portnov. 2013. Light pollution as a new risk factor for human breast and
prostate cancers. Springer, Dordrecht.
Harris, C. D. 1941. Location of Salt Lake City. Economic Geography 17:204–212.
Hattar, S., H. W. Liao, M. Takao, D. M. Berson, and K. W. Yau. 2002. Melanopsin-containing
retinal ganglion cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity. Science
295:1065–1070.
Havlin, J. 1964. Zur Lösung der Amselfrage [The solution to the blackbird question].
Angewandte Ornithologie 2:9–14.
Hill, G. E. 1988. Fog Effect of the Great Salt Lake. Journal of Applied Meteorology 27:778–783.
Hölker, F., T. Moss, B. Griefahn, W. Kloas, C. C. Voight, D. Henckel, A. Hänel, P. M. Kappeler,
S. Völker, A. Schwope, S. Franke, D. Uhrlandt, J. Fischer, R. Klenke, C. Wolter, and K.
Tockner. 2010a. The dark side of light: a transdisciplinary research agenda for light
pollution policy. Ecology and Society 15:article 13.
Hölker, F., C. Wolter, E. K. Perkin, and K. Tockner. 2010b. Light pollution as a biodiversity
threat. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:681–682.
Horton, K. G., C. Nilsson, B. M. Van Doren, F. A. La Sorte, A. M. Dokter, and A. Farnsworth.
2019. Bright lights in the big cities: migratory birds’ exposure to artificial light. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 17:209–214.
Hurley, S., D. Goldberg, D. Nelson, A. Hertz, P. L. Horn-Ross, L. Bernstein, and P. Reynolds.
2014. Light at night and breast cancer risk among California teachers. Epidemiology
25:697–706.
Huss, A., L. van Wel, L. Bogaards, T. Vrijkotte, L. Wolf, G. Hoek, and R. Vermeulen. 2019.
Shedding some light in the dark—a comparison of personal measurements with satellite-
based estimates of exposure to light at night among children in the Netherlands.
Environmental Health Perspectives 127:067001.
James, P., K. A. Bertrand, J. E. Hart, E. S. Schernhammer, R. M. Tamimi, and F. Laden. 2017.
Outdoor light at night and breast cancer incidence in the Nurses’ Health Study II.
Environmental Health Perspectives 87010:1.
Jones, L. R. 2008. Ecological factors determining nesting habitat for American Avocets on the
Inland Sea Shorebird Preserve. Utah Birds 21:2–12.
Kempenaers, B., P. Borgström, P. Loës, E. Schlicht, and M. Valcu. 2010. Artificial night lighting
affects dawn song, extra-pair siring success, and lay date in songbirds. Current Biology
20:1735–1739.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
E
128
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
38
Kinzey, B., T. E. Perrin, N. J. Miller, M. Kocifaj, M. Aubé, and H. S. Lamphar. 2017. An
investigation of LED street lighting’s impact on sky glow. U.S. Department of Energy
(Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830), Richland, Washington.
Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of
Field Ornithology 61:120–128.
Kloog, I., A. Haim, and B. A. Portnov. 2009a. Using kernel density function as an urban analysis
tool: investigating the association between nightlight exposure and the incidence of breast
cancer in Haifa, Israel. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 33:55–63.
Kloog, I., A. Haim, R. G. Stevens, M. Barchana, and B. A. Portnov. 2008. Light at night co-
distributes with incident breast but not lung cancer in the female population of Israel.
Chronobiology International 25:65–81.
Kloog, I., A. Haim, R. G. Stevens, and B. A. Portnov. 2009b. Global co-distribution of light at
night (LAN) and cancers of prostate, colon, and lung in men. Chronobiology
International 26:108–125.
Kloog, I., B. A. Portnov, H. S. Rennert, and A. Haim. 2011. Does the modern urbanized sleeping
habitat pose a breast cancer risk? Chronobiology International 28:76–80.
Kloog, I., R. G. Stevens, A. Haim, and B. A. Portnov. 2010. Nighttime light level co-distributes
with breast cancer incidence worldwide. Cancer Causes & Control 21:2059–2068.
Knop, E., L. Zoller, R. Ryser, C. Gerpe, M. Hörler, and C. Fontaine. 2017. Artificial light at
night as a new threat to pollination. Nature 548:206–209.
Kolligs, D. 2000. Ökologische Auswirkungen künstlicher Lichtquellen auf nachtaktive Insekten,
insbesondere Schmetterlinge (Lepidoptera) [Ecological effects of artificial light sources
on nocturnally active insects, in particular on moths (Lepidoptera)]. Faunistisch-
Oekologische Mitteilungen Supplement 28:1–136.
Koo, Y. S., J.-Y. Song, E.-Y. Joo, H.-J. Lee, E. Lee, S.-k. Lee, and K.-Y. Jung. 2016. Outdoor
artificial light at night, obesity, and sleep health: cross-sectional analysis in the KoGES
study. Chronobiology International 33:301–314.
Kotler, B. P. 1984a. Effects of illumination on the rate of resource harvesting in a community of
desert rodents. American Midland Naturalist 111:383–389.
Kotler, B. P. 1984b. Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology
65:689–701.
Kramer, K. M., and E. C. Birney. 2001. Effect of light intensity on activity patterns of
patagonian leaf-eared mice, Phyllotis xanthopygus. Journal of Mammalogy 82:535–544.
Kyba, C., A. Hänel, and F. Hölker. 2014. Redefining efficiency for outdoor lighting. Energy &
Environmental Science 7:1806–1809.
La Sorte, F. A., D. Fink, J. J. Buler, A. Farnsworth, and S. A. Cabrera‐Cruz. 2017. Seasonal
associations with urban light pollution for nocturnally migrating bird populations. Global
Change Biology 23:4609–4619.
Lack, D. 1965. The life of the robin. H. F. & G. Witherby, London.
Lloyd, J. E. 2006. Stray light, fireflies, and fireflyers. Pages 345–364 in C. Rich and T.
Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Longcore, T. 2010. Sensory ecology: night lights alter reproductive behavior of blue tits. Current
Biology 20:R893–R895.
Longcore, T. 2018. Hazard or hope? LEDs and wildlife. LED Professional Review 70:52–57.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
129
39
Longcore, T., H. Aldern, J. Eggers, S. Flores, L. Franco, E. Hirshfield-Yamanishi, L. Petrinec,
W. Yan, and A. Barroso. 2015a. Tuning the white light spectrum of light emitting diode
lamps to reduce attraction of nocturnal arthropods. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 370:20140125.
Longcore, T., H. L. Aldern, J. F. Eggers, S. Flores, L. Franco, E. Hirshfield-Yamanishi, L. N.
Petrinec, W. A. Yan, and A. M. Barroso. 2015b. Tuning the white light spectrum of light
emitting diode lamps to reduce attraction of nocturnal arthropods. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 370:20140125.
Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 2:191–198.
Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2017. Artificial Night Lighting and Protected Lands: Ecological
Effects and Management Approaches (Revised August 2017). Natural Resource Report
NPS/NRSS/NSNS/NRR—2017/1493. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Longcore, T., C. Rich, and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 2008. Height, guy wires, and steady-burning
lights increase hazard of communication towers to nocturnal migrants: a review and
meta-analysis. Auk 125:485–492.
Longcore, T., A. Rodríguez, B. Witherington, J. F. Penniman, L. Herf, and M. Herf. 2018a.
Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night.
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology 329:511–
521.
Longcore, T., A. Rodríguez, B. Witherington, J. F. Penniman, L. Herf, and M. Herf. 2018b.
Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night.
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology.
Love, R. 2005. Daylighting Salt Lake’s City Creek. Golden Gate University Law Review
35:343–376.
Luginbuhl, C. B., G. W. Lockwood, D. R. Davis, K. Pick, and J. Selders. 2009. From the ground
up I: light pollution sources in Flagstaff, Arizona. Publications of the Astronomical
Society of the Pacific 121:185–203.
Lunn, R. M., D. E. Blask, A. N. Coogan, M. G. Figueiro, M. R. Gorman, J. E. Hall, J. Hansen, R.
J. Nelson, S. Panda, and M. H. Smolensky. 2017. Health consequences of electric
lighting practices in the modern world: a report on the National Toxicology Program’s
workshop on shift work at night, artificial light at night, and circadian disruption. Science
of the Total Environment 607:1073–1084.
Macgregor, C. J., D. M. Evans, R. Fox, and M. J. O. Pocock. 2017. The dark side of street
lighting: impacts on moths and evidence for the disruption of nocturnal pollen transport.
Global Change Biology 23:697–707.
Macgregor, C. J., M. J. O. Pocock, R. Fox, and D. M. Evans. 2015. Pollination by nocturnal
Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: a review. Ecological Entomology 40:187–
198.
Marchant, P., J. D. Hale, and J. P. Sadler. 2020. Does changing to brighter road lighting improve
road safety? Multilevel longitudinal analysis of road traffic collision frequency during the
relighting of a UK city. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
Massetti, L. 2018. Assessing the impact of street lighting on Platanus x acerifolia phenology.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34:71–77.
McFarlane, R. W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road lighting.
Copeia 1963:153.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
E
130
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
40
McLaren, J. D., J. J. Buler, T. Schreckengost, J. A. Smolinsky, M. Boone, E. E. van Loon, D. K.
Dawson, and E. L. Walters. 2018. Artificial light at night confounds broad-scale habitat
use by migrating birds. Ecology Letters 21:356–364.
Meyer, L. A., and S. M. P. Sullivan. 2013. Bright lights, big city: influences of ecological light
pollution on reciprocal stream–riparian invertebrate fluxes. Ecological Applications
23:1322–1330.
Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American Robins.
Condor 108:130–139.
Miller, N. J., and B. R. Kinzey. 2018. Home nighttime light exposures: how much are we really
getting? IALD News. International Association of Lighting Designers.
Min, J.-y., and K.-b. Min. 2018. Outdoor artificial nighttime light and use of hypnotic
medications in older adults: A population-based cohort study. Journal of Clinical Sleep
Medicine 14:1903–1910.
Mukhin, A., V. Grinkevich, and B. Helm. 2009. Under cover of darkness: nocturnal life of
diurnal birds. Journal of Biological Rhythms 24:225–231.
Nagare, R., B. Plitnick, and M. Figueiro. 2019. Effect of exposure duration and light spectra on
nighttime melatonin suppression in adolescents and adults. Lighting Research &
Technology 51:530–543.
O’Farrell, M. J., B. W. Miller, and W. L. Gannon. 1999. Qualitative identification of free-flying
bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammalogy 80:11–23.
Obayashi, K., K. Saeki, J. Iwamoto, Y. Ikada, and N. Kurumatani. 2013. Exposure to light at
night and risk of depression in the elderly. Journal of affective disorders 151:331–336.
Obayashi, K., K. Saeki, J. Iwamoto, Y. Ikada, and N. Kurumatani. 2014. Association between
light exposure at night and nighttime blood pressure in the elderly independent of
nocturnal urinary melatonin excretion. Chronobiology International 31:779–786.
Obayashi, K., K. Saeki, and N. Kurumatani. 2016. Ambient light exposure and changes in
obesity parameters: a longitudinal study of the HEIJO-KYO cohort. The Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 101:3539–3547.
Ohayon, M. M., and C. Milesi. 2016. Artificial outdoor nighttime lights associate with altered
sleep behavior in the American general population. Sleep 39:1311–1320.
Palmer, M., R. Gibbons, R. Bhagavathula, D. Davidson, and D. Holshouser. 2017. Roadway
Lighting's Impact on Altering Soybean Growth: Volume 1. 0197-9191, Illinois Center for
Transportation/Illinois Department of Transportation.
Phillips, A. J., P. Vidafar, A. C. Burns, E. M. McGlashan, C. Anderson, S. M. Rajaratnam, S. W.
Lockley, and S. W. Cain. 2019. High sensitivity and interindividual variability in the
response of the human circadian system to evening light. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 116:12019–12024.
Polak, T., C. Korine, S. Yair, and M. W. Holderied. 2011. Differential effects of artificial
lighting on flight and foraging behaivour of two sympatric bat species in a desert. Journal
of Zoology 285:21–27.
Poot, H., B. J. Ens, H. de Vries, M. A. H. Donners, M. R. Wernand, and J. M. Marquenie. 2008.
Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13:47.
Price, M. V., N. M. Waser, and T. A. Bass. 1984. Effects of moonlight on microhabitat use by
desert rodents. Journal of Mammalogy 65:353–356.
Rawson, H. E. 1923. A bird’s song in relation to light. Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural
History Society and Field Club 17:363–365.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
131
41
Rea, M. S., J. A. Brons, and M. G. Figueiro. 2011. Measurements of light at night (LAN) for a
sample of female school teachers. Chronobiology International 28:673–680.
Rea, M. S., M. G. Figueiro, A. Bierman, and J. D. Bullough. 2010. Circadian light. Journal of
Circadian Rhythms 8:1–10.
Resco, V., J. Hartwell, and A. Hall. 2009. Ecological implications of plants’ ability to tell the
time. Ecology Letters 12:583–592.
Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Riou, S., and K. Hamer. 2008. Predation risk and reproductive effort: impacts of moonlight on
food provisioning and chick growth in Manx Shearwaters. Animal Behaviour 76:1743–
1748.
Robert, K. A., J. A. Lesku, J. Partecke, and B. Chambers. 2015. Artificial light at night
desynchronizes strictly seasonal reproduction in a wild mammal. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 282:20151745.
Rohweder, D. A., and P. R. Baverstock. 1996. Preliminary investigation of nocturnal habitat use
by migratory waders (Order Charadriiformes) in northern New South Wales. Wildlife
Research 23:169–183.
Rowan, W. 1938. London starlings and seasonal reproduction in birds. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London A108:51–78.
Rydell, J. 2006. Bats and their insect prey at streetlights. Pages 43–60 in C. Rich and T.
Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
San-Jose, L. M., R. Séchaud, K. Schalcher, C. Judes, A. Questiaux, A. Oliveira-Xavier, C.
Gémard, B. Almasi, P. Béziers, A. Kelber, A. Amar, and A. Roulin. 2019. Differential
fitness effects of moonlight on plumage colour morphs in barn owls. Nature Ecology &
Evolution.
Schmidt, T. M., and P. Kofuji. 2009. Functional and morphological differences among
intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Neuroscience 29:476–482.
Ściężor, T., M. Kubala, and W. Kaszowski. 2012. Light pollution of the mountain areas in
Poland. Archives of Environmental Protection 38:59–69.
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-Friendly Building Design, 2nd Ed., American Bird
Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Shuboni, D., and L. Yan. 2010. Nighttime dim light exposure alters the responses of the
circadian system. Neuroscience 170:1172–1178.
Sick, H., and D. M. Teixeira. 1981. Nocturnal activities of Brazilian hummingbirds and
flycatchers at artificial illumination. Auk 98:191–192.
Simons, A. L., X. Yin, and T. Longcore. 2020. High correlation but high scale-dependent
variance between satellite measured night lights and terrestrial exposure. Environmental
Research Communications 2:021006.
Skaf, J. R. G., E. T. Hamanishi, O. Wilkins, S. Raj, and M. M. Campbell. 2010. The impact of
artificial night lighting in an urban environment on plant photosynthesis and gene
expression. Plant Biology 2010. American Society of Plant Biologists and Canadian
Society of Plant Physiologists, Montréal, Canada.
Škvareninová, J., M. Tuhárska, J. Škvarenina, D. Babálová, L. Slobodníková, B. Slobodník, H.
Středová, and J. Minďaš. 2017. Effects of light pollution on tree phenology in the urban
environment. Moravian Geographical Reports 25:282–290.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
E
132
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
42
Souman, J. L., T. Borra, I. de Goijer, L. J. Schlangen, B. N. Vlaskamp, and M. P. Lucassen.
2018. Spectral tuning of white light allows for strong reduction in melatonin suppression
without changing illumination level or color temperature. Journal of Biological Rhythms
33:420–431.
Spoelstra, K., R. H. A. van Grunsven, J. J. C. Ramakers, K. B. Ferguson, T. Raap, M. Donners,
E. M. Veenendaal, and M. E. Visser. 2017. Response of bats to light with different
spectra: light-shy and agile bat presence is affected by white and green, but not red light.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20170075.
Stone, E. L., S. Harris, and G. Jones. 2015. Impacts of artificial lighting on bats: a review of
challenges and solutions. Mammalian Biology-Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 80:213–
219.
Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current
Biology 19:1123–1127.
Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2012. Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts
of LED lighting on bats. Global Change Biology 18:2458–2465.
Stracey, C. M., B. Wynn, and S. K. Robinson. 2014. Light pollution allows the Northern
Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) to feed nestlings after dark. The Wilson Journal of
Ornithology 126:366–369.
Sustek, Z. 1999. Light attraction of carabid beetles and their survival in the city centre. Biologia
(Bratislava) 54:539–551.
Sutherland, D. R., and M. Predavec. 1999. The effects of moonlight on microhabitat use by
Antechinus agilis (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Australian Journal of Zoology 47:1–17.
Thomas, R. J., T. Székely, I. C. Cuthill, D. G. C. Harper, S. E. Newson, T. D. Frayling, and P. D.
Wallis. 2002. Eye size in birds and the timing of song at dawn. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London B 269:831–837.
Ticleanu, C., and P. Littlefair. 2015. A summary of LED lighting impacts on health. International
Journal of Sustainable Lighting 17:5–11.
Tillmann, J. E. 2009. Fear of the dark: night-time roosting and anti-predation behaviour in the
grey partridge (Perdix perdix L.). Behaviour 146:999–1023.
Titulaer, M., K. Spoelstra, C. Y. M. J. G. Lange, and M. E. Visser. 2012. Activity patterns during
food provisioning are affected by artificial light in free living great tits (Parus major).
PLoS ONE 7:e37377.
Topping, M. G., J. S. Millar, and J. A. Goddard. 1999. The effects of moonlight on nocturnal
activity in bushy-tailed wood rats (Neotoma cinerea). Canadian Journal of Zoology
77:480–485.
Upham, N. S., and J. C. Hafner. 2013. Do nocturnal rodents in the Great Basin Desert avoid
moonlight? Journal of Mammalogy 94:59–72.
Van Doren, B. M., K. G. Horton, A. M. Dokter, H. Klinck, S. B. Elbin, and A. Farnsworth. 2017.
High-intensity urban light installation dramatically alters nocturnal bird migration.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:11175–11180.
van Langevelde, F., J. A. Ettema, M. Donners, M. F. WallisDeVries, and D. Groenendijk. 2011.
Effect of spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biological
Conservation 144:2274–2281.
Vasquez, R. A. 1994. Assessment of predation risk via illumination level: facultative central
place foraging in the cricetid rodent Phyllotis darwini. Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology 34:375–381.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
133
43
Viviani, V. R., M. Y. Rocha, and O. Hagen. 2010. Fauna de besouros bioluminescentes
(Coleoptera: Elateroidea: Lampyridae; Phengodidae, Elateridae) nos municípios de
Campinas, Sorocaba-Votorantim e Rio Claro-Limeira (SP, Brasil): biodiversidade e
influência da urbanização. Biota Neotropica 10:103–116.
Voigt, C. C., C. Azam, J. Dekker, J. Ferguson, M. Fritze, S. Gazaryan, F. Hölker, G. Jones, N.
Leader, D. Lewanzik, H. J. G. A. Limpens, F. Mathews, J. Rydell, H. Schofield, K.
Spoelstra, and M. Zagmajster. 2018. Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Lighting
Projects. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 8. UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn,
Germany.
Wang, T., and D. M. Shier. 2018. Effects of anthropogenic lighting on San Bernardino kangaroo
rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) foraging behavior, persistence and fitness. Revised
final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation
Research, San Deigo, California.
Wang, T. B., and D. M. Shier. 2017. Effects of anthropogenic lighting on Pacific pocket mouse
(Perognathus longimembris pacificus) foraging bhevior, persistence and fitness. Final
Report prepared for Wildlife Management Branch Environmental Security Dept. Marine
Corps, Base Camp Pendleton. San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, San
Diego.
Wang, W., J. Y. Barnaby, Y. Tada, H. Li, M. Tör, D. Caldelari, D.-u. Lee, X.-D. Fu, and X.
Dong. 2011. Timing of plant immune responses by a central circadian regulator. Nature
460:110–114.
Williams, C. B. 1936. The influence of moonlight on the activity of certain nocturnal insects,
particularly of the family Noctuidae, as indicated by a light trap. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 266:357–
389.
Xiao, Q., G. Gee, R. R. Jones, P. Jia, P. James, and L. Hale. 2020. Cross-sectional association
between outdoor artificial light at night and sleep duration in middle-to-older aged adults:
The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Environmental Research 180:108823.
Zhang, S., X. Chen, J. Zhang, and H. Li. 2014. Differences in the reproductive hormone rhythm
of tree sparrows (Passer montanus) from urban and rural sites in Beijing: the effect of
anthropogenic light sources. General and Comparative Endocrinology 206:24–29.
Zubidat, A. E., R. Ben-Shlomo, and A. Haim. 2007. Thermoregulatory and endocrine responses
to light pulses in short-day acclimated social voles (Microtus socialis). Chronobiology
International 24:269–288.
Zubidat, A. E., R. J. Nelson, and A. Haim. 2010. Differential effects of photophase irradiance on
metabolic and urinary stress hormone concentrations in blind and sighted rodents.
Chronobiology International 27:1–29.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
E
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Street Lighting Master Plan
VOLUME 2 - TECHNICAL GUIDANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION
JUNE 2020
3
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE ..........................................1
LUMINAIRE SUBMITTAL FORMS .................................3
PROCESS FOR EVALUATING THE LIGHTED
ENVIRONMENT .........................................................3
Determine Lighting Strategy based on Site
Location .......................................................................3
Establish Lighting Warrants ..............................3
Determine Street Classifications .....................5
Determine Adjacent Land Use .........................5
Determine Pedestrian Activity Levels ...........7
COMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS ...........................8
Purpose ........................................................................8
Lighting Design Process ......................................8
Lighting Applications ............................................8
MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS ......................................51
Confirm Existing Conditions .............................51
Supplemental Improvements ...........................51
One-For-One Replacement ..............................51
LIGHTING CONTROLS AND ADAPTIVE DIMMING
STRATEGIES ............................................................51
LIGHTING CALCULATIONS ......................................54
Purpose .....................................................................54
How To Set Up A Calculation .........................54
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
5
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
HOW TO USE THIS DESIGN GUIDE
This section outlines the street lighting design
process and the steps to developing quality
street and pedestrian lighting. The criteria used
is from the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America’s (IES) American National
Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting (RP-
8-18).
Lighting designers should evaluate each
lighting installation on a block by block basis
and use the criteria to identify the appropriate
lighting strategy based on the information
provided in the following sections.
LUMINAIRE SUBMITTAL FORMS
Designers and engineers will use street and
pedestrian luminaire submittal forms found in
Appendix E to ensure that all luminaire criteria,
set forth in this chapter as well as in the Luminaire
Criteria Tables, are met. These forms should be
completed during the lighting design process
and most of the information on the forms can
be found in the luminaire specification sheet.
These forms will aid the City in approving
luminaire selection for construction.
PROCESS FOR EVALUATING THE LIGHTED
ENVIRONMENT
DETERMINE LIGHTING STRATEGY
BASED ON SITE LOCATION
The majority of lighting installations in Salt
Lake City are street and/or pedestrian lights for
which the City has adopted a standard. Using
the same equipment for most installations
reduces inventory and makes replacements
and repairs more efficient and cost effective.
However, this master plan and existing lighting
programs allow for areas within the city to
differentiate themselves with unique lighting
features. When designing street and pedestrian
lighting, the designer must be aware of the
area and if there are any unique influences. All
new lighting in a character area should match
and comply with luminaire style and criteria
established in this Master Plan. Some character
districts in the City, such as residential areas,
may require lighting redesign, regardless of
existing conditions to meet applicable criteria.
Areas not included in a character district will
be lighted with cobrahead style luminaires
and standard pedestrian scale luminaires that
meet the criteria and spacing based on road
classification established in the Master Plan.
ESTABLISH LIGHTING WARRANTS
The Lighting Warrants Table below considers all
factors and leads the designer to the appropriate
lighting strategy based on street classification,
adjacent land use, and pedestrian conflict. The
next sections provide the user with background
and guidance on the Lighting Warrants Chart
to identify appropriate attributes and select
the appropriate lighting strategy. The designer
must use the appropriate strategy and include
any character influences in their design. Not
all streets in the City will warrant continuous
lighting, but all streets with continuous lighting
must meet the lighting criteria set forth by IES
RP-8-18.
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESS
6
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 1: LIGHTING WARRANTS - ARTERIAL
ARTERIAL STREET
PED EXISTING CONDITIONS STREET
LIGHTING PED LIGHTING PG. #
COMMERCIAL
HIGH Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 29
MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.31
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 27
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 27
OFFICE PARK LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 27
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 27
DOWNTOWN
HIGH
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 29
MED
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.31
INDUSTRIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 33
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 33
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.31
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31
OPEN SPACE
MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 27
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 27
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 33
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 33
* High pedestrian conflict is only found in Downtown, Sugarhouse, Trolley Square, and within one
block of the University of Utah and Smith’s Ballpark
7
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 2: LIGHTING WARRANTS – COLLECTOR
* High pedestrian conflict is only found in Downtown, Sugarhouse, Trolley Square, and within one
block of the University of Utah and Smith’s Ballpark
COLLECTOR
PED EXISTING CONDITIONS STREET
LIGHTING PED LIGHTING PG. #
COMMERCIAL
HIGH Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 38
MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.40
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-cont. NA 36
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 36
OFFICE PARK LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-cont. NA 36
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 36
DOWNTOWN
HIGH
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 38
MED
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-Cont.40
INDUSTRIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 44
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 44
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.42
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.40
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont.OR Non-cont.36,42
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only &Non-cont.44,42
OPEN SPACE
MED N/A
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 44
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 44
8
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 3: LIGHTING WARRANTS – LOCAL
* High pedestrian conflict is only found in Downtown, Sugarhouse, Trolley Square, and within one
block of the University of Utah and Smith’s Ballpark
LOCAL
PED EXISTING CONDITIONS STREET
LIGHTING PED LIGHTING PG. #
COMMERCIAL
HIGH Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 45,50
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont.&Continuous 48
MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. OR Continuous 47, 50
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont.OR Continuous 47, 50
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.36
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.36
OFFICE PARK LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.53, 52
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.53, 52
DOWNTOWN
HIGH
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 45,50
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont.&Continuous 48
MED
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. OR Continuous 47, 50
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-Cont.OR Continuous 47, 50
INDUSTRIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 53
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 53
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only &Continuous 53
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only &Continuous 53
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only Optional Non-Cont.53, 52
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only Optional Non-cont.53, 52
OPEN SPACE
MED N/A
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 53
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 53
9
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
Street classification is used to determine the
lighting warrants for a street, along with the
surrounding environment and pedestrian conflict.
Figure 1 shows all street classifications throughout
the city. The following street and roadway
definitions are from IES RP-8-18.
FREEWAY:
A divided highway with full control of access.
Oftentimes with great visual complexity and high
traffic volumes. This roadway is usually found in
major metropolitan areas in or near the central
core and will operate at or near design capacity
through some of the early morning or late evening
hours of darkness.
*Freeway, which are UDOT facilities, are not
included in the scope of this Masterplan.
MAJOR (ARTERIAL):
That part of the roadway system that serves as
the principle network for through-traffic flow.
The routes connect areas of principle traffic
generation and important rural roadways entering
and leaving the city. These routes are often known
as “arterials”. They are sometimes subdivided
into primary and secondary; however, such
distinctions are not necessary in roadway lighting.
These routes primarily serve through traffic and
secondarily provide access to abutting property.
COLLECTOR:
Roadways servicing traffic between major and
local streets. These are streets used mainly for
traffic movements within residential, commercial,
and industrial areas. They do not handle long,
through trips. Collector streets may be used for
truck or bus movements and give direct service
for abutting properties.
LOCAL:
Local streets are used primarily for direct access
to residential, commercial, industrial, or other
abutting property. They make up a sizable
percentage of the total street system but carry a
small proportion of vehicular traffic.
INTERSECTIONS:
A traffic conflict area in which two or more streets
join or cross at the same grade. The outside edge
of pedestrian crosswalks defines intersection
limits. If there are no pedestrian crosswalks, the
stop bars define the intersection. If there are
no stop bars, the intersection is defined by the
radius return of each intersection leg. Intersection
limits may also include the area encompassing
channelized areas in which traffic is directed into
definite paths by islands with raised curbing.
DETERMINE STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
0 1.5 30.75
Miles
STREET CLASSIFICATIONS KEY
LOCAL
ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
FREEWAY
I-80
I-80
I-215I-215
I-15
HWY
154
400 S.
S. TEMPLE
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
70
0
E
.
1700 S.
17
0
0
W
.
Figure 1: Street Classifications Map
10
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
Adjacent land use is a key factor in determining
lighting strategy as it directly correlates to the
number of pedestrians and vehicles in the area
during nighttime hours. Areas of increased
traffic volume at night warrant additional
lighting, whereas areas that typically do not
have much traffic after dark warrant base level
lighting. Figure 2 is the Land Use Map. Adjacent
land use should be evaluated according to the
consolidated zoning provided in this master
plan. For projects that are on the boundaries
between land uses, the designer should select
the lower criteria with more stringent light
trespass to protect residential and open space
uses. If the project includes areas that are
within, or adjacent to, a Critical Wildlife Area,
all luminaire installed should meet the luminaire
requirements of the protected area.
COMMERCIAL
Commercial land use is a diverse classification
encompassing high, medium and low pedestrian
and traffic volumes. Areas with concentrated
restaurant and retail establishments, such as
the Sugarhouse Business District and 9th &
9th, typically see medium to high pedestrian
and traffic volumes during nighttime hours and
should have increased light levels and possibly
additional pedestrian lighting. However, big
box stores and strip malls do not typically
see the same number of pedestrians during
nighttime hours and can have reduced light
levels. Designers must carefully evaluate the
pedestrian and traffic volume where lighting
improvements are being made and select
the proper lighting criteria to create a safe
and comfortable nighttime environment for
pedestrians and vehicles.
OFFICE PARK
Office Parks are defined as areas where people
tend to work during the day but are mostly
vacant during nighttime hours. Establishments
in this classification are generally open between
8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. but typically close in
the early evening and are not open into the
night.
DOWNTOWN
Downtown Salt Lake City is the heart of the
retail and restaurant business in the valley and
attracts people at all times of the day. This area
typically sees high and medium pedestrian and
traffic volumes and is lighted by the historic
Cactus Poles. Lighting in Downtown should
focus on pedestrian safety and properly
illuminating crosswalks and sidewalks. In most
cases luminaire spacing has already been
established so it is essential that designers
select the proper distribution and lumen output
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial land use is defined by manufacturing
and distribution within the City. This land use
includes, but is not limited to, the establishments
found south of the airport off of California Ave.
Industrial land use has very minimal pedestrian
usage, especially during nighttime hours and
requires minimal lighting. Additionally, most of
the industrial land use areas within Salt Lake
City are also within Critical Wildlife Habitats
and will require appropriate lighting to minimize
environmental impacts.
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DETERMINE ADJACENT LAND USE
11
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
Multifamily residential is characterized by multiple
separate housing units for residential inhabitants
are contained within on building or several
buildings within one complex. When designing
lighting on streets adjacent to multifamily
residential areas a medium pedestrian conflict
should be used as there are typically higher
pedestrian and vehicle volumes. Residential areas
are typically on streets with lower speed limits
and less traffic, however this is not always the
case. Salt Lake City has residential land use on all
street classifications, arterial, collector and local
creating multiple lighting strategies that may be
appropriate. Designers should consider the safety
of pedestrian and vehicles when selecting the
appropriate lighting strategy while respecting the
residents by minimizing light trespass.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Single family residential is characterized by a
stand-alone dwelling serving as the primary
residence for one family. Single family residential
areas typically have less pedestrian volume, and
when designing lighting in these areas, a low
pedestrian conflict should be used. Residential
areas are typically on streets with lower speed
limits and less traffic, however this is not always
the case. Salt Lake City has residential land use
on all street classifications, arterial, collector and
local, creating multiple lighting strategies that may
be appropriate. Designers should consider the
safety of pedestrian and vehicles when selecting
the appropriate lighting strategy while respecting
the residents by minimizing light trespass.
OPEN SPACE
The purpose of the OS Open Space District
is to preserve and enhance public and private
open space, natural areas, and improved park
and recreational areas. These areas provide
opportunities for active and passive outdoor
recreation, provide contrasts to the built
environment, preserve scenic qualities, and
protect sensitive or fragile environmental areas.
Examples of Open Space within the City include
City Creek Canyon, Salt Lake City Cemetery, and
along the Jordan River. Any Streets bordering
the foothills are considered to be along Open
Space as well. These streets typically see minimal
pedestrian usage and are within Critical Habitat
areas requiring additional measures to ensure
environmentally friendly street lights are used.
¯0 1 20.5 Miles
Zones
Low Density Residential
Multi Family Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Downtown
Office Park
Agriculture
Institutional
Airport
Transit Service Areas
Parks
Open Space
Public Land/Civic
Figure 2: Adjacent Land Use Map
12
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
IES pedestrian volumes represent the total
number of pedestrians walking in both
directions on a typical block or 660 foot
section. Pedestrian counts and traffic studies
take precedence over other references.
The following are pedestrian classification
definitions per IES RP-8-18. The pedestrian
counts should be taken during darkness hours
when the typical peak number of pedestrians
are present. This typically occurs during early
morning hours if a school or similar destinations
are nearby. The lighting designer should
determine what the typical peak hours are for
each street.
HIGH:
Areas with significant numbers (over 100
pedestrians an hour) of pedestrians expected
to be on the sidewalks or crossing the streets
during darkness. Examples are downtown retail
areas, near theaters, concert halls, stadiums,
and transit terminals.
MEDIUM:
Areas where fewer (10 to 100 pedestrians an
hour) pedestrians utilize the streets at night.
Typical are downtown office areas, blocks with
libraries, apartments, neighborhood shopping,
industrial, parks, and streets with transit lines.
LOW:
Areas with very low volumes (10 or fewer
pedestrians per hour) of night pedestrian usage.
A low pedestrian classification can occur in any
street classifications but may be typified by
suburban streets with single-family dwellings,
very low-density residential developments, and
rural or semi-rural areas.
DETERMINING PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY LEVELS
13
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
PURPOSE
This section applies to new installations of
public street and pedestrian lighting, either
standalone or on traffic signal installations,
and modifications to existing street lighting
installations that affect pole types or locations,
excluding minor maintenance work. Refer to
Volume 2: Minimal Improvements for projects
involving 1-for-1 luminaire replacement and
supplemental improvements.
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESS
Performing a lighting design for new installations
of streetlights is an iterative process. This
occurs because the lighting design is altered
(spacing, arrangement, mounting height) until
the target goal is met, per criteria set forth in
this document, for the specific street. The most
efficient method is to calculate luminance for
straight streets or illuminance for intersections
and non-straight streets, along with sidewalks
and other pedestrian areas with varying
luminaire parameters. The selected luminaire
must comply with the lumen output, efficacy,
BUG ratings, and other luminaire requirements
specified in Volume 2. Care should be taken,
when selecting a luminaire to illuminate the
surrounding sidewalks and public spaces
without causing light trespass, or unwanted
light spills onto surrounding properties and
through residential windows. Instructions on
setting up the lighting design calculations are
found later in this volume.
Lighting designers should use the Lighting
Warrants Table to determine the appropriate
strategy based on street classification, adjacent
land use, and pedestrian conflict. Once the
appropriate lighting strategy is determined,
designers can find lighting and luminaire criteria
and spacing guidance in the corresponding
sheets below. All lighting layouts for each street
classification are broken out below and should
be referenced during the design process.
LIGHTING APPLICATIONS
The following pages describe the luminaire
selection and lighting layout for each street
classification as defined by the Salt Lake City
Transportation Division. Designers should strive
to meet the luminaire spacing that will provide
the highest quality street lighting possible, but
this is not always feasible. It is necessary to
integrate lighting locations in correspondence
to other improvements:
• Clearance from driveways (10 feet
commercial and 5 feet residential).
• Clearance from fire hydrants (5 feet).
• Trees (centered in between trees or 20 feet
from the tree trunk).
• Streetlight offset should be a minimum of
3’-0” and a maximum of 8’-0” from back of
curb.
• Pedestrian lights should be a minimum
of 1’-0” and a maximum of 6’-0” from the
sidewalk.
• Light standards integrated into sidewalk
should maintain a minimum of 5’-0” clear
zone.
• Light standards should be located a
minimum distance of 10’-0” from trees.
Place poles and luminaires near property lines
wherever practical and avoid locations in front
of doorways, windows, and lines of egress.
COMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS
14
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
INTERSECTIONS & CROSSWALKS
The same luminaires are to be used throughout
the intersection. When an intersection is
between two different street classifications,
the higher street classification target criteria
is used throughout the entire intersection.
The recommended streetlight layout for an
intersection also depends on whether the
street classification calls for continuous or non-
continuous lighting.
The following requirements are recommended
to guide all traffic signal mounted streetlights.
The intersection design should ensure that the
crosswalks are sufficiently lighted to light the
vertical surface (body) of pedestrians in the
crosswalk. This may require that additional
streetlights be located before the intersection
as shown in the Figures 3 and 4 below.
Mid-block crossings and denoted crosswalks are
recommended to always be lighted. Crosswalks
can be denoted by striping, signage, flashing
beacons, etc. Crosswalks are important parts
of the streetscape and an appropriate lighting
design will improve the visibility of pedestrians
in the crosswalk. The lighting should be installed
between the vehicle and the crosswalk (ie: half to
one pole height before the crosswalk) to ensure
that the body of the pedestrian is adequately
lighted. If streetlights are installed above or
immediately adjacent to the crosswalk, only
the top of the pedestrian’s head will be lighted
making it difficult for motorists to see the
pedestrian. Crosswalks and mid-block crossings
are recommended to be lighted to the Vertical
Illuminance requirements in the table below.
Vertical illuminance measurements are taken
5ft. above the roadway surface in the direction
of oncoming traffic.
Figure 3: Streetlight Located Before Crosswalk Figure 4: Streetlight Placement with Respect to
Crosswalk
15
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 4: INTERSECTION & CROSSWALK TARGET HORIZONTAL CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
STREET
CLASS
PED
CONFLICT
AVERAGE
HORIZONTAL
ILLUMINANCE
(FC)
UNIFORMITY
RATIO
(FCAVG/
FCMIN)
AVERAGE
VERTICAL
ILLUMINANCE
(FC)
MOUNTING
HEIGHT
(FEET)
MAST ARM
LENGTH
(FT)
DISTRIBUTION MAX BUG
RATING
LUMEN OUTPUT
RANGE
Arterial /
Arterial
High 3.4 3 1.4 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 16,000-25,000
Medium 2.6 3 0.9 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 10,000-16,000
Low 1.8 3 0.5 30-40 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 7,000-12,000
Arterial /
Collector
High 2.9 3 0.9 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 10,000-18,000
Medium 2.2 3 0.6 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 8,500-13,500
Low 1.5 3 0.4 30-40 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 5,000-10,000
Arterial /
Local
High 2.6 3 0.8 30-35 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 10,000-16,000
Medium 2.0 3 0.6 30-35 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 7,500-12,500
Low 1.3 3 0.4 30-35 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 4,000-8,500
Collector
/ Collec-
tor
High 2.4 4 0.7 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 7,500-12,000
Medium 1.8 4 0.5 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 4,500-7,500
Low 1.2 4 0.5 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-2 3,500-6,000
Collector
/ Local
High 2.1 4 0.6 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 6,000-10,500
Medium 1.6 4 0.5 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-2 4,000-7,000
Low 1.0 4 0.3 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-2 3,000-5,500
Local /
Local
>30mph
High 1.8 6 0.5 25-30 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 5,000-8,000
Medium 1.4 6 0.4 25-30 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-1 4,000-6,000
Low 1.0 6 0.2 25-30 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-1 3,000-5,500
Local /
Local
<30mph
High N/A
Medium N/A
Low N/A
* A U2 BUG rating is acceptable when using a house side shield?
1. Arterial mid block crossing shall follow the arterial/arterial intersection criteria.
2. Collector mid block crossing shall follow the collector/collector intersection criteria.
16
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
SIGNALIZED/CONTINUOUS LIGHTING
For a signalized intersection with continuous lighting the typical streetlight arrangement is
interrupted by placing streetlight signal poles. This is called out as “1/2 to 1 mounting height to
centerline of crosswalk (Typical)” in Figure 5 below. Additional streetlights should be located on
signal poles if additional lighting is needed to meet the intersection criteria.
Figure 5: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with Signals and Continuous Lighting
NON- SIGNALIZED/CONTINUOUS LIGHTING
For a non-signalized intersection with continuous lighting the typical streetlight arrangement is
continued through the intersection (see Figure 6). The streetlights should be located along the
approach to the crosswalk, if it exists, installed half to one luminaire mounting height in front of
the crosswalk, between approaching vehicles and pedestrians.
Figure 6: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with No Signals and Continuous Lighting
17
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SIGNALIZED/NON-CONTINUOUS LIGHTING
For signalized intersections with non-continuous lighting luminaires are located half to one
luminaire mounting height in front of the crosswalk, illuminating the approach to the intersection.
If these four luminaires do not provide sufficient lighting throughout the entire intersection, two
more additional luminaires may be used, to be mounted on the signals as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with Signals and Non-Continuous
Lighting
NON-SIGNALIZED/NON-CONTINUOUS LIGHTING
For streets with non-continuous lighting and no signals, one luminaire is to be placed at each
intersection, as shown in Figure 8. Refer to the Local Street chapter for more information.
Figure 8: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with No Signals and Non-Continuous
Lighting
18
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
MID-BLOCK CROSSWALKS
The standard is a streetlight located one half to 1 mounting height in front of the crosswalk on both
sides of the street for all mid-block crossings, shown in Figures 9 and 10.
Figure 9: Streetlight Placement with Respect to Mid-Block Crossing
Figure 10: Cactus Pole Placement with Respect to Mid-Block Crossing
19
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
CACTUS POLE LAYOUTS
Cactus Poles within downtown SLC should be upgraded to fully shielded LED luminaires. The
Cactus Pole locations and spacing will not change, but the lumen output and distribution of
new luminaire should meet the criteria in Table 7 and 8 based on the location of the lighting
improvements seen in Figure 11 and 12.
Figure 11: Cactus Pole Lighting Layouts
Striped
Median
℄
Walk Tree
Lawn
Bike
Street Width
Parking Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane
℄
WalkTree
Lawn
Bike ParkingDrive
Lane
Drive
Lane
CACTUS POLESFigure 12: Cactus Pole Sections
TABLE 5: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5
TABLE 6: COLLECTOR STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 0.8 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.6 4:1 0.5
20
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 7: RECOMMENDED CACTUS POLE LUMINAIRE CRITERIA – ARTERIAL STREETS
STREET
WIDTH
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
STREET LIGHT
LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
STREET LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. STREET
LIGHT BUG
RATING
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT LUMEN
OUTPUT (LM)
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX.
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT BUG
RATING
70-90
High 8,500-10,500 Type III or IV B3-U0-G2*3,000-
5,000 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1
Medium 5,500-9,000 Type III B3-U0-G2*
3,000-
5,000 Type III B1-U0-G1
90-110
High 6,500-9,500 Type II B3-U0-G2*
3,500-
5,500 Type III B1-U0-G1
Medium 8,000-11,500 Type III B3-U0-G2*
2,500-
5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
TABLE 8: RECOMMENDED CACTUS POLE LUMINAIRE CRITERIA – COLLECTOR STREETS
STREET
WIDTH
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
STREET LIGHT
LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
STREET LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. STREET
LIGHT BUG
RATING
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT LUMEN
OUTPUT (LM)
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX.
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT BUG
RATING
70-90
High 5,500-8,500 Type III or IV B2-U0-G2 2,500-
4,500 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1
Medium 4,500-8,000 Type II or IV B2-U0-G2
2,500-
4,500 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1
90-110
High 9,000-11,500 Type III B3-U0-G2
3,000-
5,000 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1
Medium 4,500-7,500 Type III or IV B2-U0-G2
3,000-
5,000 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1
* These BUG Ratings apply to all Cactus Pole lights, except at intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings,
which may have B3-U3-G2 Ratings to provide adequate vertical illuminance at crosswalks.”
21
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
Street Width
Walk Tree
Lawn
Striped
Median
Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane
℄
WalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane
SUGARHOUSE TEAR DROP
SUGARHOUSE POLE LAYOUT
The teardrop luminaires in the Sugarhouse Business District should be upgraded to fully shielded
LED luminaires. The locations and spacing will not change, but the lumen output and distribution
of new luminaire should meet the criteria in Table 10. This is illustrated in Figures 13 and 14.
Figure 13: Sugarhouse Pole Lighting Layouts
Figure 14: Sugarhouse Pole Lighting Section
22
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 9: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5
TABLE 10: RECOMMENDED SUGARHOUSE POLE LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
STREET LIGHT
LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
STREET LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. STREET
LIGHT BUG
RATING
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX.
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT BUG
RATING
High 6,000-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 2,000-3,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Medium 3,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G1 1,000-2,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
23
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TEAR DROP POLE LAYOUT
The teardrop luminaires along South Temple and State Street should be upgraded to fully shielded
LED luminaires. The locations and spacing will not change, but the lumen output and distribution
of new luminaire should meet the criteria in Table 12. This is illustrated in Figures 15 and 16.
Figure 15: Tear Drop Lighting Layouts
Figure 16: Tear Drop Lighting Section
Street Width
Striped
Median
Drive
Lane
℄
Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane WalkBikeParking
Walk Tree
Lawn
Tree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane Bike Parking
S TEMPLE STATE ST TEAR
DROP
24
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 11: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5
Low 0.6 4:1 0.4
TABLE 12: RECOMMENDED TEAR DROP LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET
WIDTH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING
50-70
High 11,000-14,750 Type III B2-U0-G2
Medium 8,500-12,000 Type III B2-U0-G2
Low 5,500-8,500 Type III B2-U0-G2
70-
100
High 16,500-20,500 Type III B3-U0-G3
Medium 16,500-20,500 Type III B3-U0-G3
Low 11,000-16,500 Type III B2-U0-G2
25
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
ARTERIAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with only street lighting. Luminaires are
to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection, Figures 17 and 18.
Figure 17: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting Plan
Figure 18: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section
26
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 13: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5
Low 0.6 4:1 0.4
TABLE 14: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
STREET
WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
50-70
High
120-140 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
140-180 30-35 8,500-14,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
Medium 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 8,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 180-220 30-35 6,000-8,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-90
High 140-180 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 12,000-18,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
Medium 120-160 30-35 7,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-200 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
Low 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 7,500-11,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
90-110
High 120-160 30-35 11,000-18,000 Type II B3-U0-G3
Medium 140-180 30-35 10,000-18,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 15,000-19,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
Low 140-180 30-35 8,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 12,000-14,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
27
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
ARTERIAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with non-continuous street. Street
luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection,
Figures 19 and 20.
Figure 19: Typical Arterial with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Plan
Figure 20: Typical Arterial with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
SIGNAL-MOUNTED
LUMINAIRE (TYP)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTING ONLY
MAX SPACING TO BE DOUBLE RECOMMENDED
SPACING FOR CONTINUOUS LIGHTING
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalk Tree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL NON CONTINUOUS
STREET LIGHTING
28
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 15: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
STREET
WIDTH
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
50-70 Medium 240-280 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
280-360 30-35 8,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 360-440 30-35 6,000-8,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-90
Medium 240-320 30-35 7,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
320-400 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
Low 280-360 30-35 6,500-9,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
360-440 30-35 7,500-11,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
90-110
Medium 280-360 30-35 10,000-18,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
360-440 30-35 15,000-19,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
Low 280-360 30-35 8,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
360-440 30-35 12,000-14,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
29
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
ARTERIAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING AND CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with continuous street and pedestrian
lighting. Street lights are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an
intersection. Pedestrian lights should be coordinated with the landscape and street lighting
layouts to maintain a consistent spacing, Figures 21 and 22.
Figure 21: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 22: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalk Tree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:29 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:29 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
30
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 16: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
TABLE 17: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) STREET LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
STREET
WIDTH
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
50-70 High
120-140 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
140-180 30-35 8,500-14,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
70-90 High 140-180 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 12,000-18,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
90-110 High 120-160 30-35 11,000-18,000 Type II B3-U0-G3
TABLE 18: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
31
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
ARTERIAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING AND NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with continuous street lighting and non-
continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement
when not located at an intersection. Pedestrian luminaire should be located to illuminate locations
shadowed by trees or at vehicle-pedestrian conflict points, Figures 23 and 24.
Figure 23: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 24: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalk Tree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND NON CONT. PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:35 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND NON CONT. PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:35 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
32
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 19: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5
Low 0.6 4:1 0.4
TABLE 20: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
STREET
WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
50-70
High 120-140 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
140-180 30-35 8,500-14,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
Medium 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 8,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 180-220 30-35 6,000-8,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-90
High 140-180 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 12,000-18,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
Medium 120-160 30-35 7,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-200 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
Low 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 7,500-11,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
90-110
High 120-160 30-35 11,000-18,000 Type II B3-U0-G3
Medium 140-180 30-35 10,000-18,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 15,000-19,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
Low 140-180 30-35 8,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 12,000-14,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
TABLE 21: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING
High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
Medium 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
80-120 12-15 3,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Low 50-80 12-15 2,000-4,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
80-120 12-15 2,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
33
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
ARTERIAL STREET – INTERSECTION ONLY LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and
non-median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with intersection only street light-
ing. Street luminaires are to be placed at the intersection with luminaire on half to one mounting
height in front of any existing crosswalks, Figures 25 and 26.
Figure 25: Typical Arterial with Street Lights at Intersections Only Plan
Figure 26: Typical Arterial with Street Lights at Intersections Only Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL STREET INT. ONL
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL STREET INT. ONL
See Intersections & Crosswalks Section on page 14 for lighting criteria and luminaire recom-
mendations.
34
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with only street lighting. Luminaires are
to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection, Figures 27 and 28.
Figure 27: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Street Lighting
Figure 28: Typical Cross Section for Collector with Continuous Street Lighting
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR STREET LIGHTING ONLY
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR STREET LIGHTING ONLY
35
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 22: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 0.8 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.6 4:1 0.5
TABLE 23: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
ROADWAY
WIDTH (FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50
High 140-160 30 6,500-7,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 5,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 6,500-8,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
50-70
High 140-160 30 6,500-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 7,000-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 6,000-7,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 7,000-8,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-100
High 120-140 30 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 9,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
36
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with non-continuous street lighting.
Luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection,
Figures 29 and 30.
Figure 29: Typical Collector Street with Non-Continuous Street Lighting
Figure 30: Typical Collector Street with Non-Continuous Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR NON CONTINUOUS STREETZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:40 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR NON CONTINUOUS STREETZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:40 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
37
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 24: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
ROADWAY
WIDTH (FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50
Medium 280-320 30 5,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
320-440 30 6,500-8,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 280-360 30 4,000-5,500 Type III B1-U0-G1
360-440 30 4,500-6,000 Type III B1-U0-G1
50-70
Medium 280-320 30 6,000-7,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
320-440 30 7,000-8,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 280-320 30 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G1
320-440 30 5,000-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-100
Medium 280-320 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
320-440 30 9,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 280-360 30 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
360-440 30 6,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
38
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET AND CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with continuous street and pedestrian
lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at
an intersection. Pedestrian lights should be coordinated with the landscape and street lighting
layouts to maintain a consistent spacing, Figures 31 and 32.
Figure 31: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting
Figure 32: Typical Collector with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR CONT STREET & PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:44 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR CONT STREET & PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:44 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
39
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 25: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 0.8 3:1 1.0
TABLE 26: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
ROADWAY
WIDTH (FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 High
140-180 30 6,500-7,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 7,000-10,000 B2-U0-G2
50-70 High 140-160 30 6,500-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-220 30 7,000-9,000 B2-U0-G2
70-100 High 120-140 30 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
TABLE 27: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
80-120 12-15 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
40
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET AND NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with continuous street lighting and non-
continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement
when not located at an intersection. Pedestrian luminaire should be located to illuminate locations
shadowed by trees or at vehicle-pedestrian conflict points, Figures 33 and 34.
Figure 33: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Street and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 34: Typical Collector with Continuous Street and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR CONT STREET NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:49 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR CONT STREET NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:49 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
41
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 28: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 0.8 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.6 4:1 0.5
TABLE 30: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
80-120 12-15 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
Medium 50-80 12-15 2,000-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
80-120 12-15 2,500-5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
TABLE 29: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
ROADWAY
WIDTH (FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50
High 140-180 30 6,500-7,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 5,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-220 30 6,500-8,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
50-70
High 140-160 30 6,500-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-220 30 7,000-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 6,000-7,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-220 30 7,000-8,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-100
High 120-140 30 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-220 30 9,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
42
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with continuous pedestrian lighting.
Pedestrian lights should be coordinated with the landscape and street lighting layouts to maintain
a consistent spacing, Figures 35 and 36.
Figure 35: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting
Figure 36: Typical Collector with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
60'-0"
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
ROW
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:57 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
60'-0"
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
ROW
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:57 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
See Intersection Section on page 46 for intersection lighting criteria and luminaire recommendations.
43
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 31: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Medium 50-80 12-15 2,000-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
44
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with street lighting at intersections and
non-continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed at the intersection with
luminaire on half to one mounting height in front of any existing crosswalks. Pedestrian luminaire
should be located to illuminate locations shadowed by trees or at vehicle-pedestrian conflict
points.
Figure 37: Typical Collector Street with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 38: : Typical Collector with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:02 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:02 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and
luminaire recommendations.
45
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 32: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
Medium 80-120 12-15 2,500-5,000 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
Low 80-120 12-15 2,500-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
46
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – STREET LIGHTING AT INTERSECTIONS ONLY
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with street lighting at intersections and
non-continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed at the intersection with
luminaire on half to one mounting height in front of any existing crosswalks, Figures 39 and 40.
Figure 39: Typical Collector with Street Lighting at Intersections Only Plan
Figure 40: Typical Collector with Street Lighting at Intersections Only Cross Section
See Intersections & Crosswalks Section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and
luminaire recommendations.
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR STREET INT ONLY
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR STREET INT ONLY
47
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
LOCAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
Figure 41: Typical Local Continuous Street Lighting Layout
Figure 42: Typical Local Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section
Local Continuous Street Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL CONT STREET LIGHTING
Local Continuous Street Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL CONT STREET LIGHTING
48
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 33: LOCAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 0.6 6:1 1.0
TABLE 34: RECOMMENDED LOCAL STREET LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 High
140-180 30 4,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
180-220 30 4,500-7,750 Type II or III B2-U0-G1
50-80 High 120-160 30 4,500-7,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
160-200 30 5,500-8,250 Type II or III B2-U0-G1
49
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
LOCAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
Figure 43: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Plan
Figure 44: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section
Local Non Continuous Street Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL NON CONT STREET
LIGHTING
Local Non Continuous Street Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL NON CONT STREET
LIGHTING
TABLE 35: RECOMMENDED LOCAL STREET LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 High 280-360 30 4,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
360-440 30 4,500-7,750 Type II or III B2-U0-G1
Medium 320-440 30 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
50-80 High 240-320 30 4,500-7,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
320-400 30 5,500-8,250 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 300-400 30 4,500-6,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
50
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
LOCAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING AND CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
Figure 45: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street and Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 46: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street and Continuous Ped Lighting Cross Section
Local Non Continuous Street Continuous Ped Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
LOCAL NON CONT STREET CONT
PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:07 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
Local Non Continuous Street Continuous Ped Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
LOCAL NON CONT STREET CONT
PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:07 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
51
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 38: RECOMMENDED LOCAL PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 High
60-90 12 2,500-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
90-120 12 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
50-80 High 60-90 12 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
TABLE 36: LOCAL SIDEWALK TARGET CRITERIA PER IES
RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.0
Medium 0.5
TABLE 37: RECOMMENDED LOCAL STREET LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 High
280-360 30 4,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
360-440 30 4,500-7,750 Type II or III B2-U0-G1
50-80 High 240-320 30 4,500-7,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
320-400 30 5,500-8,250 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
52
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
LOCAL STREET –CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
Figure 47: Typical Local Street with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 48: Typical Local Street with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
Local Continuous Ped Lighting
36'-0"
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:11 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
Local Continuous Ped Lighting36'-0"
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:11 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and
luminaire recommendations.
53
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 39: LOCAL SIDEWALK TARGET CRITERIA PER IES
RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.0
Medium 0.5
TABLE 40: RECOMMENDED LOCAL PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE
SPACING (FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING
30-50
High 60-90 12 2,500-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
90-120 12 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Medium 60-90 12 2,500-3,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1
90-120 12 3,500-5,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1
50-80 High 60-90 12 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Medium 60-90 12 4,000-5,550 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
54
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
LOCAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
Figure 49: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 50: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
TABLE 41: RECOMMENDED LOCAL PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE
SPACING (FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 Medium 120-180 12 2,500-3,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1
180-240 12 3,500-5,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1
Low 120-240 12 2,000-4,000 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1
50-80 Medium 120-180 12 4,000-5,550 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Low 160-240 12 2,500-4,000 Type II, III or IV B1-U0-G1
See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and
luminaire recommendations.
Local Non Continuous Ped Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL NON CONT PED
Local Non Continuous Ped Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL NON CONT PED
55
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
LOCAL STREET – INTERSECTION ONLY LIGHTING
Figure 51: Typical Local Street Intersection Only Lighting Plan
Figure 52: Typical Local Street with Intersection Only Lighting Cross Section
See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and
luminaire recommendations.
56
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
Figure 53: Uncovered Bus Stop Lighting Layout
BUS STOP LIGHTING
UNCOVERED BUS STOP
Uncovered bus stops should be lit by a street luminaire positioned 1/2 to 1 mounting height from
the bus stop in the direction of oncoming traffic. The illuminance criteria at bus stops are found
in Table 42.
Figure 54: Covered Bus Stop Lighting Section
BUS SHELTERS
Bus Shelters criteria are found in Table 42. Vertical illuminance aids in facial recognition and visible
comfort and is to be measured 5 ft. above the ground. Street luminaires within 100 ft of bus
shelters increase ambient light and visual comfort.
TABLE 42: LOCAL SIDEWALK TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
BUS STOP CRITERIA HORIZONTAL ILLUMINANCE (FC) VERTICAL ILLUMINANCE (FC)
Uncovered Bus Stop 1.0 0.2
Covered Bus Stop 1.0 1.0
57
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS
CONFIRM EXISTING CONDITIONS
Current existing conditions where improvements are being made should be evaluated prior to
beginning lighting improvement design. One-for-one replacements should be done where the
existing lighting strategy meets the required lighting strategy in the Lighting Warrants Table 1-3. If
the existing lighting strategy is appropriate, the spacing of the existing lights should be upgraded
to meet the lumen requirements for the specific type and land use and the necessary infrastructure,
such as wiring, foundation, and poles are all in good condition. If the lighting strategy in the area
requires additional street or pedestrian lights, supplemental improvements will need to be made.
Supplemental improvements may also need to be made if the spacing is not met or there are
infrastructure issues.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS
Supplemental improvements entail adding a limited quantity of new street or pedestrian light
locations to the existing lighting system to illuminate any dark areas on the street. If any of
the following conditions exist, then the improvement area should follow the comprehensive
improvement methodology:
• The existing lighting on the block does not meet the lighting strategy in Tables 1-3: Lighting
Warrants and additional pedestrian or streetlights are necessary to comply with the appropriate
lighting strategy.
• Existing street or pedestrian light spacing exceeds two times the recommended value based
on lighting strategy.
• Lighting only exists on one side of the street and does not sufficiently light the whole street.
To maintain consistency in the lighting design, all luminaires used in supplemental improvements
should match the luminaires chosen for 1-for-1 replacements.
ONE-FOR-ONE REPLACEMENT
Salt Lake City is upgrading existing HID lights to new energy efficient LEDs. The new replacement
lights should meet the lighting criteria set forth in the Luminaire Criteria Tables based on street
classification, adjacent land use and pedestrian conflict. The City is also working to upgrade any
previously installed LEDs that are not within the luminaire specification and are causing obtrusive
glare and light trespass to a luminaire that is more appropriate to the specific location. All one-
for-one replacements should match the appreciate color temperature based on adjacent land use
and existing LEDs that do not meet the appropriate CCT should be considered for replacement.
58
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
As part of the lighting upgrades throughout the city, the new LED lights will be compatible with
a city-wide wireless lighting control system. This lighting control system will allow Salt Lake City
to have precise control over each individual light throughout the City, enabling the City to raise or
lower light levels when needed or desired. Dimming strategies will vary throughout the City based
on adjacent land use, pedestrian conflicts, and time of day to ensure vehicle and pedestrian safety
while working to minimize light pollution and light trespass.
When dimming lighting in a certain area, the lighting strategy must be considered, speed limit on the
streets, and vehicle and pedestrian volumes.
• When dimming continuous street or pedestrian lighting, the first strategy is to dim from high
or medium pedestrian criteria to medium or low pedestrian criteria. If continuous lighting
is already in a low pedestrian area, research supports that when using broad spectrum LED
sources, dimming to 70% of current output or lower can still provide sufficient lighting. If the
City is interested in dimming below a low pedestrian criteria for a certain continuously lighted
street, the City should undergo a public engagement pilot study with residents, city council,
police, fire, and the city attorney to further understand the implications of reduced lighting in
the area.
• Along streets with non-continuous street and pedestrian lighting, there is not a required
lighting criteria and lights should be dimmed to comfortable levels while still maintaining the
desired effect of the lighting design.
DIMMING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS:
All street classifications are found in all single-and multi-family residential areas in Salt Lake City.
The Table below summarizes the recommended dimming strategies based on street classification,
and pedestrian conflict.
TABLE 43: RECOMMENDED DIMMING STRATEGIES FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS
ARTERIAL STREET COLLECTOR STREET LOCAL STREET
Multifamily Residential
(Med Ped Conflict)
Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to
Low Ped Conflict
Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to
Low Ped Conflict
Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to Low
Ped Conflict
Single Family Residential
(Low Ped Conflict)
*Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to
Comfortable Light
Levels
*Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to
Comfortable Light
Levels
*Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to
Comfortable Light Levels
* Dimming to comfortable light levels below the Low Pedestrian Criteria requires a public engagement
process.
LIGHTING CONTROLS AND ADAPTIVE DIMMING STRATEGIES
59
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
DIMMING IN DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT/RETAIL ENVIRONMENTS
It is essential to maintain proper light levels based on pedestrian conflict when adjusting light
levels in the downtown. Pedestrian traffic fluctuates based on the night of the week, as well as the
time of day. If an event is happening within a public gathering space or venue, higher pedestrian
volume should be expected, and the recommended dimming strategy should be overruled and
the areas surrounding the event center should be lighted to criteria. The table below shows the
dimming strategies based on night of the week and time of night.
TABLE 44: RECOMMENDED DIMMING STRATEGIES FOR DOWNTOWN
DIMMING STRATEGY
Sunday Night - Wednesday
Night
Dusk to 10PM Light to Criteria
10PM to Midnight Reduce Criteria to a Lower Pedestrian Conflict
Midnight to 2:30AM Reduce Criteria to Low Pedestrian Conflict or
to Comfortable Light Levels
2:30AM to Dawn Reduce Criteria to Low Pedestrian Conflict or
to Comfortable Light Levels
Thursday Night - Saturday
Night
Dusk to 10PM Light to Criteria
10PM to Midnight Reduce Criteria to a Lower Pedestrian Conflict
Midnight to 2:30AM Light to Criteria
2:30AM to Dawn Reduce Criteria to Low Pedestrian Conflict or
to Comfortable Light Levels
* Dimming to comfortable light levels below the Low Pedestrian Criteria requires a public engagement
process
DIMMING INTERSECTION AND MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS
Intersections and mid-block crossing should be dimmed separately from the rest of the streetlights;
however, the same strategy should be used. If the intersection or crossing has less traffic at certain
times throughout the night, the criteria can be reduced to a lower pedestrian conflict criteria. If
further reduction in light levels are desired, a similar public engagement process should be done
to ensure the safety of pedestrians and vehicles at intersection and mid-block crossings.
60
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATIONS
Luminaire specifications are found in Tables 55 & 56
TABLE 55: SPECIFICATION OVERVIEW
CONTROLS ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Integral 0-10V dimmable drivers to adjust light
levels. All streetlights will be installed with an ANSI
7 pin photocell receptacle to be compatible with
wireless controls in the future.
Single phase 120/240V electrical system
voltage.
LIGHT STANDARD SPECIFICATION LIGHT STANDARD FOUNDATIONS
The light standard - also referred to as the pole -
should be tapered, round galvanized steel with a
12-inch bolt circle. Color match the head and arm of
the pole. Design replacement poles, heads, and/or
arms to match existing color and type of adjacent
poles if appropriate and with written City approval.
City approval of decorative or non-standard poles
is required. Painted over galvanized is required for
any pole requiring color change. All new mast arm
installations are required to be 2, 6, or 10 feet. The
City must approve all poles with banner arms and
power receptacles.
City standard design for all precast concrete
or poured-in-place light standard foundations.
While the City accepts poured-in-place
foundations, precast concrete foundations are
preferred and should be installed whenever
possible.
61
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
TABLE 56: LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATIONS
Correlated Color Temperature
(CCT)3000K Maximum
Color Rendering Index (CRI)≥65 in most areas, or > 40 in Critical Wildlife Habitat
Luminaire Lumen Range
The lumen output should comply with the lumen range specified in the
Recommended Luminaire Criteria Tables based on street classification,
adjacent land use and pedestrian conflict. Criteria for luminaire CCT are
found in Volume 1 Table 5.
Luminaire Finish
Die cast aluminum housing with fade and abrasion resistant polyester
powder coat finish. Finish should match existing color of luminaires along
street.
Luminaire Warranty 10 years on luminaire and components.
Luminaire Warranty Period Earliest warranty period allowed starts on the date of receipt by City.
Luminaire Identification Luminaire external label per ANSI C136.15, and an interior label per ANSI
C136.22 required.
Operation and Storage
Temperature '-40°C to +40°C.
Frequency Vibration 'Luminaire should withstand low and high frequency vibration, per ANSI
C136.31, over the rated life of the light source.
Minimum Rated Life 70,000 hours minimum at 55°C, per IES TM-21
IP rating IP65 or greater.
Voltage 120/277.
Control Dimmable and installed with ANSI 7 pin photo receptacle to be compatible
with wireless luminaires controls in the future.
Cooling System Passive utilizing heat sinks, convection, or conduction. Upper surfaces
required to shed precipitation. Cooling fans are not allowed.
Photocontrol Individual multi-contact 7-pin twist lock receptacle per ANSI C136.41. Or
control module.
Electrical Immunity
Luminaire are required to meet the performance requirements specified
in ANSI C136.2 for dielectric withstand, using the DC test level and
configuration.
LU
M
I
N
A
I
R
E
Power Factor (PF)Minimum of 0.9 at full input power.
Total Harmonic Distortion (THD)Maximum of 20 percent at full input power.
Restriction of Hazardous
Substances (RoHS)Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) compliant drivers required.
Surge Protection
Protection from all electrical surges with an elevated electrical immunity
rating, including but not limited to lightning strikes and stray current in rebar
and concrete required for all LEDs. Integral surge protection to the LED
power supply required.
“Elevated” (10kV/10kA) requirements per IEEE/ANSI C62.41.2 for luminaire.
Manufacturer indication of failure of the electrical immunity system can
possibly result in disconnect of power to luminaire required.
Total Power Consumed in Off
State Maximum 8 watt off-state power consumption for luminaire, including driver.
Electromagnetic interference
Electromagnetic interference: Compliance with Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) 47 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 15 non-
consumer radio frequency interference (RFI) and/or electromagnetic
interference (EMI) standards.
LE
D
D
R
I
V
E
R
S
62
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
LIGHTING CALCULATIONS
PURPOSE
Lighting design calculations for new installations is an iterative process. The use of lighting models
to calculate the luminance along streets and illuminance on sidewalks is the most efficient and
accurate way to design to criteria. Light trespass calculations should also be included to limit the
amount of obtrusive light in the City. This section describes the required calculations to ensure
that all criteria is met for all new installations.
HOW TO SET UP A CALCULATION
The following sections document the parameters and considerations when calculating street
lighting levels.
IES FILES
The first step in running a calculation is to find and download the photometric in IES file format
for the specific luminaire being considered. This file is available on the manufacturer’s website and
can be downloaded into any lighting calculation simulation software. The IES file will contain all
information for the luminaire, such as lumen output, color temperature, wattage, distribution, and
voltage.
LIGHT LOSS FACTOR FOR LED
A light loss factor should be applied to every luminaire considered, to ensure that the maintained
light levels will meet the target criteria. Table 57, below, lists typical light loss factors for LEDs and
legacy products found throughout Salt Lake City.
TABLE 57: TYPICAL LIGHT LOSS FACTORS
LIGHT SOURCE LUMINAIRE DIRT DEPRECIATION
(LDD)
LUMINAIRE LUMEN
DEPRECIATION (LLD)
TOTAL LIGHT LOSS FACTOR
(LLF)
LED 0.9 0.97 0.818
HPS 0.9 0.9 0.81
MH 0.9 0.7 0.63
HPS: High Pressure Sodium
MH: Metal Halide
7 Use 0.9 or LM value provided by the Manufacturer at 60,000 hours, if L70 is greater than 100,000 hours
8 If using an LM value provided by the Manufacturer, the Total LLF is equal to 0.9 x LM60,000hr
63
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
LUMINANCE AND ILLUMINANCE CALCULATIONS
Calculations should be done in AGi32, DIALux, Visual, or comparable software, and include the
following calculation grids:
• ROADWAY LUMINANCE
- A calculation grid is required for every lane of traffic and oriented in the direction of travel
spaced 10’ OC along each lane, with two points across each lane.
- Every section of roadway where criteria changes requires a separate calculation grid.
• INTERSECTION ILLUMINANCE
- Intersection calculations done using horizontal illuminance grids that include the whole
intersection, as well as all crosswalks associated with the intersections. Calculation points
placed in a 5’x5’ grid.
• SIDEWALK ILLUMINANCE
- Horizontal sidewalk illuminance grids placed on all sidewalks, spaced every 5’-10’ OC along
the sidewalk with two points across the sidewalk.
• LIGHT TRESPASS ILLUMINANCE
- Light trespass grids located 5’ past the edge of ROW, into private property. Light trespass
grids placed 5’ AFF, oriented toward the street with calculation points every 5’-10’ OC.
- Light trespass calculation grids separated based on adjacent land use. If the project goes from
a residential area to a commercial area, a separate light trespass calculation grid required for
each section of the project.
- If a structure is within 5’ from the property line, light trespass grid to be placed on the
structure, 5’ AFF.
- Light trespass values should not exceed the following:
• Single Family Residential, Multifamily Residential, Industrial and Open Space properties:
0.1FC MAXIMUM.
- If this criteria is not feasible with proper shielding and distribution, a variance
may be considered to allow up to 0.2Fc Maximum light trespass in residential
areas. Designer will be required to submit a narrative describing the efforts to
control light trespass to the City Engineer.
• Commercial, Restaurant/Retail/Civic, and Mixed-use Residential properties: 0.3FC
MAXIMUM
• CROSSWALK VERTICAL ILLUMINANCE
- Vertical illuminance grids are required in all crosswalks at 5’ AFF, and oriented toward
oncoming traffic (See Figure 55). Calculation points should be located along the center line
of each crosswalk, placed every 5’ OC.
64
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
Designers submissions to the City should include a calculation summary table for each calculation
grid and include the average illuminance or luminance, maximum illuminance or luminance,
minimum illuminance or luminance, and Avg:Min ratio. Calculated values may vary from criteria by
no more than 10% above or below.
Figure 55: Horizontal Intersection Illuminance Grid
Figure 56: Vertical Intersection Illuminance Grid
65
LI
G
H
T
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
Figure 57: Roadway, Sidewalk, and Light Trespass Calculation Grid Setup
1
This summarizes the City’s rights in connection with the review and approval of small cell facilities
proposed in the public way.
In summary, the City does not have the ability to prohibit small cell facilities, even in residential,
historic, or special design districts. However, the City has the right to adopt design standards. The City
has existing Small Cell Design Standards (the “Design Standards”) related to the specifications and
siting of small cell facilities, and which small cell providers have to adhere to prior to obtaining a permit
and installing a small cell facility in the City’s ROW.
Federal and State Regulation
Small cell facilities are federally regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) under
the 1996 Telecommunications Act and various FCC orders. In particular, the Third Report and Order
and Declaratory Ruling adopted September 26, 2018 (the “2018 Order”) removes various state and local
barriers to speed up deployment of small cell facilities in the public right-of-way (the “ROW”). Many of
the rules set out by the FCC are duplicated in Utah State Code Chapter 54-21.
Federal or state law regulates the following aspects of a small cell placement in the ROW.
Small cell facilities cannot be prohibited, and regulations can’t effectively prohibit small cell
facilities in any location in the ROW, including residential, historic, or special design districts.
(47 USC § 253). This is interpreted in the 2018 Order to mean that the City can’t materially
inhibit the installation of small cell facilities.
o Utah law says that small cell facilities on a new pole are not allowed on residential streets
narrower than 60 feet wide or in historic districts without the approval of the City.
However, Federal law does not allow wireless facilities to be prohibited anywhere in the
public way.
Sets the maximum size of the small cell facility. Utah law allows a larger small cell facility than
federal law. (§ 54-21-101)
Maximum height of the pole: 50 feet or not more than 10% taller than the structure or nearby
structures. Utah law also allows the antenna to extend up to 10 feet above the top of a utility pole
that existed on or before 9/1/2018. (§ 54-21-205)
Cannot regulate minimum spacing of small cell facilities. (§ 54-21-302)
Regulates the City’s timing to review applications (the “shot clock”): 60 days for placement on
existing structures and 90 days from placement on a new structure (federal law provides a shorter
period than Utah law). Under Utah law, if the application is not denied it is deemed approved at
the expiration of the shot clock. (§ 54-21-302)
Sets maximum fees for applications, use of public way, and use of a pole. Utah law limits the
fees to an amount lower than Federal law. (§ 54-21 Part 5)
The FCC regulates Radio Frequency (RF) standards. (47 USC § 332)
Cannot enact a moratorium. (§ 54-21-302)
Decorative poles may be replaced with a pole that reasonably conforms to the replaced pole’s
aesthetics to accommodate the location of a small cell facility. (§ 54-21-206)
If an area is designated solely for underground or buried cable or utility facilities, a small cell
provider must comply, provided that the requirement is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, the
City can’t prohibit replacement of an existing pole, and a small cell facility provider must be able
2
to seek a waiver. (§ 54-21-207) A requirement to underground all wireless facilities or otherwise
materially inhibit wireless service would be an effective prohibition in violation of Federal law.
(2018 Order)
Cannot require placement on a specific utility pole or category of poles. (§ 54-21-302)
Cannot require multiple antenna systems to be placed on a single pole. (§ 54-21-302)
Allows submittal of applications in batches of up to 25 applications at a time for similar
installations, with a maximum of 75 applications every 30 days.
City Regulation
Under Utah law, small wireless facilities are a permitted use in the ROW and the City can regulate
installing, operating, replacing poles and equipment, subject only to administrative review. (47 USC
§ 332 and § 54-21-204) Approval of a permit application for a small cell facility may only be denied on
a non-discriminatory basis to all users of the ROW based on exercise of police powers. (§ 54-21-103)
The City may require a permit for the location of small cell facilities, with some exceptions and
limitations on what the City may require. (§ 54-21-302) A permit application may be denied if location
of the small cell facility:
(a) materially interferes with the safe operation of traffic control equipment;
(b) materially interferes with a sight line or a clear zone for transportation or pedestrians;
(c) materially interferes with compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq., or a similar federal or state standard regarding pedestrian access or
movement;
(d) fails to comply with applicable laws or legal obligations;
(e) creates a public health or safety hazard; or
(f) obstructs or hinders the usual travel or public safety of the right-of-way.
Federal and state law allows the City to adopt written aesthetic standards, so long as they are
(1) reasonable, (2) nondiscriminatory - no more burdensome than those applied to other [similar] types
of infrastructure, and (3) are objective and published in advance. (§ 54-21-103) The City’s design
standards govern the following aesthetic standards:
Appearance of pole and facilities (color, shape of pole or cabinet)
Width of antenna and spacing from pole
Camouflage of antennas, so long as technologically feasible
Location of cabinets, meters
Light on facilities
Preference on type and location of installation
The City can also implement standards for health, safety, and welfare:
Sightlines
Placement in relation to other utilities
Confirmation of compliance with RF standards
State law allows the City to require reasonable and nondiscriminatory special design or concealment
rules in historic and design districts. The Administration adopted the Design Standards (hyperlink
3
below) in connection with the adoption of City Code Chapter 14.56 (Wireless Facilities in the Public
Way) and following discussions with Council. As discussed below, there are opportunities to add
additional regulations to these design standards to mitigate some residents’ concerns.
Resident Concerns
Community Engagement
The Communications and Engagement Team in Communities and Neighborhoods prepared various
materials to help educate resident and answer questions. These have been updated to address new
questions as they arise. The materials were created with Real Estate Services in connection with the
Department of Public Utilities, the Engineering Division, and the City Attorney’s Office, and are located
on Engineering’s website at https://www.slc.gov/engineering/small-cell-infrastructure-design-standards/
The materials include a list of Frequently Asked Questions, the City’s Small Cell Design Standards,
contact information for engineering to ask questions and get more information, and contact information
for state representatives.
Residents are directed to this information when questions arise. Engineering has also received comments
about permits at specific locations, and the concerns generally fall into the following categories:
1. Historic Property/District. Federal law does not allow small cell facilities to be
prohibited in any location. Utah law requires a provider to obtain advance approval before locating or
installing in historic or design districts, and the City may require concealment if technologically feasible.
(§ 54-21-208)
The City’s Design Standards require additional aesthetic requirements to conform with
the surrounding aesthetics.
2. Residential Streets. Federal law does not allow small cell facilities to be prohibited in
any location. Utah law provides a provider must first obtain approval from the City to install a small
wireless facility on a new pole on a street less than 60 feet wide and adjacent to a residential property.
(§ 54-21-103)
Because the City cannot prohibit or effectively prohibit the location of small cell
facilities, our Design Standards require some additional conditions in order to receive
approval on a residential street. Installations are permitted only at the corner or on
property boundaries. Please note that most streets are wider than 60 feet.
3. Notice. Some residents have requested more notice of installations near their property.
Please note that the City cannot consider resident’s concerns in permitting a small cell facility.
Engineering has a policy that the permit holder provides notice of construction to
adjacent property owners 48-72 hours before construction starts.
City Council is considering an ordinance to codify this process.
4. Radio Frequency (RF) Safety. Some residents express concern about safety of
proximity to antennas. The FCC has authority to adopt and enforce RF exposure limits. (Section 704(b)
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996). Federal law prohibits the City from regulating the location of
4
small wireless facilities based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent
that such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations. (47 USC § 332)
The City does not have any ability to regulate or make decisions based on RF standards.
The City requires an applicant to submit evidence that the small cell facility complies
with the FCC’s RF standards.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 2/3/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 2/3/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 2/3/20201
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Library Board
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Library Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint David Wirthlin as a member of
the Library Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
February 3, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Library Board.
David Wirthlin – to be appointed for a term ending June 30, 2024, starting from the date of City
Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File