HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
August 17, 2021 Tuesday 2:00 PM
This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s Determination.
SLCCouncil.com
6:00 PM Formal Meeting & 7:00 PM Truth-in-Taxation Hearing
(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: 16:37:55
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Chair’s determination.
As Salt Lake City Council Chair, I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City
Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety
of those who may be present, and that the City and County building has been ordered
closed to the public for health and safety reasons.
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: Updates on Racial Equity and Policing TENTATIVE
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. Discussion may include:
• An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing; and
• 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
3.Ordinance: 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan
Follow-up ~ 2:30 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a follow- up briefing 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. The plan was reviewed by the Council previously and has since been
reviewed by the City’s Planning Commission as well.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 2, 2021 and Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - TBD
Hold hearing to accept public comment - TBD
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
4.Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects Follow-
up ~ 3:00 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings,
parks, streets or other physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of five or
more years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP
funding in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by
September 1 of the same year.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 2021; Tuesday, July 13, 2021; Tuesday, July 20, 2021; and
Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m. and Tuesday,
August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 24, 2021
5.Tentative Break ~ 3:45 p.m.
15 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
6.Ordinance: Amending City Code Pertaining to Fence, Wall,~ 4:00 p.m.
and Hedge Height Requirements
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning
ordinance regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-
height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be
appropriate and approved by right (Chapter 21A.40.120). The proposed amendments
would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards and six feet (6’) in
the side or rear yards for all zoning districts, except for a few specific instances. Those
instances include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district,
manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts, public facilities and recreation
facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts,
and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic
Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge
height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40
will affect all zoning districts throughout the City.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 21, 2021
7.Ordinance: Rezone at Nielsen Estates at 833 West Hoyt Place
and 834 West 200 North ~ 4:15 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning map
pertaining to two parcels located at 833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200 North. The
proposal would rezone the parcels from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District)
and R-1/7,000 (Single- Family Residential District), respectively, to SR-3 (Special
Development Pattern Residential District). The applicant would like to rezone the
properties for a future Planned Development that would include the preservation of the
existing home and add six new single-family attached homes with access coming either
from Hoyt Place (private street), or 200 North. However, the request is not tied to a
specific development proposal at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the
property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 21, 2021
Ordinance: Permitting Restaurants in the Public Lands ~ 4:30 p.m.
8.Zoning District
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend Section
21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow restaurant uses in the Public Lands
District. The purpose of the Public Lands zone (section 21A.32.070) is to delineate areas
of public use and control the potential redevelopment of public uses, lands, and facilities.
If amended, restaurants would adhere to the same regulations as other permitted uses in
the zone, which requires permitted and conditional uses to be located on lots with a
minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 21, 2021
9.Informational: Honorary Street Name “Pastor France Davis
Way”~ 4:45 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would add the honorary street
name “Pastor France Davis Way” on the block of Harvard Avenue between State Street
and Main Street, south of Calvary Baptist Church. This honorary street name would
recognize Reverend France A. Davis, who served as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary
Baptist Church, a predominately African American congregation, for over forty
years. Reverend Davis was and still is actively involved in community affairs, serving on
numerous state and local boards, providing counsel to community leaders, and serving as
a bridge builder to the various entities that make up the community. He is one of the
Core Commission Members of the City’s Commission on Racial Equity in Policing.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 24, 2021
10.Advice and Consent: Kristin Riker – Director of the Public
Lands Department ~ 5:00 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will interview Kristin Riker prior to considering appointment as the
Director of the Public Lands Department.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
11.Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Scott Lyttle ~ 5:10 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Scott Lyttle prior to considering appointment to the Business
Advisory Board for a term ending December 29, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
12.Board Appointment: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City –
Mike Pazzi ~ 5:15 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Mike Pazzi prior to considering appointment to the Housing
Authority of Salt Lake City for a term ending August 17, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 17, 2021
Standing Items
13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
14.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
15.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
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.
Administrative
updates
August 17, 2021
Current metrics
COVID-19
update
•Salt Lake County is back in the "high transmission" level,
along with 17 other counties.
Statewide:
•963 cases statewide, up 326 from previous week
•7 -day average: 950 cases per day
•Referral ICUs at 81.6% capacity
•Covid ICU Utilization: 29% as of 8/15
•Total ICU Utilization: 81% as of 8/15
Child metrics
COVID-19
update
•133 children ages 5 -13 tested positive since Monday
•91 of those 133 are ages 5 -10
•In the past week, 713 children ages 5 -13 tested positive,
compared to 133 during the same period last year. 458 are ages
5 -10, compared to 62 last year.
* graph courtesy of Robert Gehrke/SLTribune
West Side vaccination rates
COVID-19
update
June 1 June 8 July 13 July 20 August 17
84101 58.73%full
13.99%partial
60.80%full
13.11partial
68.5%full
11.66%partial
69.23% full
11.76% partial
72.08% full
12.18% partial
84104 30.31%full
9.03%partial
31.82% full
8.03%partial
37.72% full
6.19%partial
38.52% full
6.12% partial
40.88% full
7.47% partial
84116 33.74%full
8.39%partial
35.07%full
8.01%partial
41.26%full
5.96%partial
41.09% full
6.01% partial
44.21% full
7.39% partial
Countywide vaccination demographics
COVID-19
update
June 1 June 8 July 13 July 20 August 17
Asian 44.53%46.14%53.24%54.00%70%
White 42.19%43.58%49.07%49.66%64%
Black or African
American
27.03%28.58%36.30%37.37%51%
American Indian or
Alaska Native
29.86%31.27%37.70%38.80%52%
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
23.51%24.74%30.09%30.84%42%
Hispanic ethnicity 26.14%27.70%34.59%35.51%38%
Other race 40%
Vaccination events
Event Hosting Organization Date Location # of People Vaccinated
Poplar Grove Poplar Grove
Community Council August 3
Pioneer Precinct,
1040 W 700 S, Salt
Lake City, UT 84104
8
(7 first doses, 1
second dose)
NIGHT OUT--A
Community
Celebration
West Pointe
Community Council August 3 West Pointe Park 22
Partners in the Park
@ Jordan Park
University
Neighborhood
Partners
August 10 Jordan Park
14
(10 first doses, 4
second doses)
Friendly Island
Tongan Festival National Tongan
American Socieity August 12-14 Jordan Park
71
(60 first doses, 11
second doses)
Neighborhood
House Summer
Celebration
Neighborhood
House August 19
Neighborhood
House Campus
Update on people experiencing homelessness
Week of August 9, 2021
Men’s HRC King HRC Miller HRC Total
Shelter capacity 300 200 200 700
Avg. number of beds occupied each night 244 192 182 619
Avg number of beds unoccupied each
night 56 8 18 81
Avg % of beds occupied each night 81.3%96.2%91.1%88%
Avg % of beds unoccupied each night 18.7%3.8%8.9%12%
Fairmont Park Resource Fair
•Odyssey House:1 client engaged
•Advantage Services:2 engagements, no new hires
•UTA: 5 engagements with members of the community about the FAREPAY
application
•SLC Justice Courts:
o People Seen: 9
o Cases Heard: 19
•Ruff Haven:2 pet vaccines given, multiple engagements
•Lunches:100 sack lunches donated by women from the SLC Buddhist Temple
•Other participants:
·The Other Side Village
·The Road Home-Veterans and Family Outreach Teams
·Valley Behavior Health
·VOA
·CCC Team
The next Kayak Court will be held this Friday, August 20 th
Homelessness
update
Body Worn Camera Update –Aug. 17, 2021
Chief Mike Brown
History of Body Worn Cameras
•SLCPD started using Axon cameras in 2013
•They provide our City, taxpayers, and community with important levels of accountability and transparency.
•We have more than 550 Body Worn Cameras in our Department.
Photo: Axon Enterprise Inc.
SLCPD BWC Policies
•All patrol officers are required to wear a
camera while on on-duty.
•Officers are required to active cameras and
audio before any law enforcement
encounter with the public or as quickly as
possible
•A police officer is not permitted to de-
activate their Body Worn Camera or to mute
the audio without first stating, on the
record, the reason for deactivating or
muting.
•In 2019, we started with a random BWC sampling.
•The review at the time only covered 35% of the Department.
•In 2021, we are inspecting every officer assigned a BWC
•This is accomplished by reviewing a maximum of 2 BWC
videos from each officer.
•Supervisors are responsible for handling these reviews.
Internal Auditing of BWCs
Internal Auditing of BWCs
Screenshot of redacted internal BWC data
Today’s audits provide us information on approx. 30
data points
Audit and Inspection Squad
•Under the leadership of Lt. Mark Cryder and Capt. Scott
Teerlink, we have developed a first-of-its-kind protocol
with Versaterm.
•We are currently in beta-testing of this new operating
system
•Hope to have the software running department wide by
9/1
Audit and Inspection Squad
•Officers can press the “BWC” button while on a call.
•The system will give officers several prompts
Audit and Inspection Squad
Audit and Inspection Squad
Body Worn Cameras | Final Notes
•We are looking into developing a data dashboard on our public
website to have the results of our BWC audits available for review.
•In June 2021, Matrix found SLCPD officers properly activate their
camera 92% of the time.
•Compared to other police department audits reviewed, SLCPD had a
better activation rate than several of their peers.
Questions
Photo: Axon Enterprise Inc.
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:August 17, 2021
RE:2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan
NEW INFORMATION
Pursuant to city resolution and state code, the City Council asked the Administration to present the
Street Lighting Master Plan proposal to the City Planning Commission. The April 14, 2021 City
Planning Commission forwarded the following along with a positive recommendation (i.e. a
recommendation that the City adopt the plan & its accompanying documents): the Commissioner
recommended that the Council “further explore the warmness of the light and the kelvin temperatures
and further understand that fully.” (Attachment 3)
It’s the understanding of Council staff that the Department of Public Utilities is confident in the plan’s
current recommendations and resources in the context of color temperature. The following
reconstruction of feedback and new information might be helpful and draws from a technical memo
(Attachment 2) prepared by the department & its consultant on the topic of light temperature and
impacts to the following categories of organic life.
The Department has communicated that the plan in its current state has adequate and appropriate
control measures to mitigate impacts to humans and wildlife, such as its neighborhood-level
evaluation and engagement recommendations for the process of developing lighting solutions for
unique geographic areas throughout the city.
-Birds:
o “There is no evidence that color temperature is a driving force in attraction and
mortality of migratory birds.” (Attachment 2, page 11, last paragraph).
-Insects:
o “One group where color is relatively more important is insects, which are, in general,
more attracted to blue, violet, and ultraviolet than yellows and reds. There are
exceptions to this pattern, but studies of insect attraction to different color
temperatures of LED find that lower color temperatures attract fewer insects. This
relationship has been quantified and can be used to compare attraction of specific
options for street lighting [citation omitted for clarity]. For nearly all [insect]
organisms investigated, lower color temperatures are assessed to have reduce impacts.”
(Attachment 2, page 11, last full paragraph)
Item Schedule:
Briefing: August 17, 2021
Public Hearing: TBD
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
-Human beings:
o “Scientists who are skeptical about the potential for outdoor to affect human health
point to the intensity thresholds for melatonin suppression. Based on models of human
physiology, they demonstrate that melatonin suppression is likely to be very small or
not measurable below approximately 5 [lux] [this is a technical measurement for one
dimension of lighting intensity]. Since outdoor lighting rarely reaches these levels
within dwellings, the impact is presumed to be minimal, regardless of color
temperature. This argument, however, does not extend to exposures outdoors at night
and illumination under street lighting often exceeds 5 lux.
A precautionary approach to color temperature for human circadian health relative to
outdoor lighting would be to favor the use of lower color temperature lighting… which
then would be balanced against other guideposts.” (Attachment 2, page 11, first
paragraph, emphasis added)
Finally, dark skies interests have been referenced or represented as compelling for inclusion and
serious consideration in the plan. The Department’s technical memo provides the following advice for
technical implementation sensitive to dark skies interests: “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 [sic], 50% less bright,
and with a [color temperature] of no greater than 3000 K.” (Attachment 2, page 12, last paragraph)
In other words, for dark skies interests & for purposes of reducing impacts to organic life, the
Department has represented that the plan allows for flexible and responsive implementation of
lighting strategies to address a range of concerns, such as those listed as examples above.
In the future, the Council might consider the following elements in the context of a
potential motion considering adoption of the plan:
-The Council could include legislative intent language that the “dark skies” mitigation criteria
for “minimum impact on light pollution” be followed uniformly & that the department provide
annual or bi-annual reports on locations where that guidance has been superseded by other
constraints in the course of lighting implementation.
-The Council could ask the Department to consider where impacts to wildlife can be reduced or
eliminated, and provide a report on proactive lighting implementation that takes this value
into account as the plan moves ahead.
-The Council might ask the Department or Administration to consider options for evaluating
impacts to insect communities as a result of City street lighting changes.
-The Council might ask the Department to consider whether and where there are situations
where residents or groups of residents could regularly experience lighting intensity from public
fixtures at a level that would disrupt melatonin regulation.
Attachments
1. Transmittal
2. Department correlation report
3. April 14, 2021 Planning Commission minutes
Page | 3
PREVIOUS INFORMATION FROM THE FEBRUARY 2021 BRIEFING
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,
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
Page | 4
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.
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.
Page | 5
• 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)
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:
Page | 6
• 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
APPENDIX C
Page | 7
Page | 8
APPENDIX D
Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan
Process & Issues Related to Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT)
06/16/2021
The topic of Correlated Color Temperature (CCT), which describes the perceived color of a light source, related
to street lighting has become quite controversial with the transition from predominantly high pressure sodium
(HPS) street lights with an amber color temperature (2200K CCT) to light emitting diode (LED) street lights,
which are can vary in color temp, typically from warm white (2700K) to cool/bluish white (5000K).
Recommendation: With a complexity of various research and opinions related to the CCT of street lighting, we
recommend that Salt Lake City perform a few pilot installations that demonstrate and compare different
CCTs in a few areas throughout the city, such as Single-Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential,
Commercial, and Downtown. These demonstrations will allow Salt Lake City to engage the public and
stakeholder groups in the final selection of CCT that is preferred and appropriate for each area. This process
should include some educational outreach to inform the public about the various issues related to CCT as
described in this memo and gather data on the preferences of the public and stakeholder groups.
What is Correlated Color Temperature (CCT)?
Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) is a measure of light source color appearance as compared to an ideal
blackbody radiator that is heated to a specific temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin (K). This is similar to
the variation of color seen in flames of a fire or gas stove. The higher temperature flame is perceived as blue
and lower temperature flame is perceived as yellow to orange.
How CCT is Addressed in the SLC Street Lighting Master Plan
The CCT of street lighting affects a few different areas of human experience and environmental impacts,
including: Brightness Perception, Nighttime Visibility, Color Identification, Aesthetic Character, Personal and
Cultural Preference, Human Health, Dark Skies and Behavior of Wildlife and Insects. This article from Pew
Charitable Trusts, “Citing Health Concerns, Some Cities Consider Dimmer LED Streetlights” provides an
overview of some of the controversial topics.
The Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan has considered all of these perspectives by implementing a
thorough Engagement Process, evaluating current research, and providing flexibility of on-going community
engagement to determine the final CCT to be used in each neighborhood or Council District. This Engagement
Process helped to develop the Guideposts for this Street Lighting Master Plan, which are: Safety, Character,
Responsibility and Equity. All of the decisions and guidance within this Plan have been considered and
balanced in relationship to these Guideposts. Considering the Guidepost of Responsibility, the Street Lighting
Master Plan has followed the advice from the American Medical Association (AMA) and International Dark-Sky
Association (IDA) for a maximum of 3000K CCT in Commercial, Retail, Civic and Downtown areas. This Master
Plan goes further, by limiting the CCT in Residential areas to 2700K maximum, and near environmentally
sensitive areas to 2200K maximum. By stating “maximum” CCT levels, and providing a path for on-going
community engagement, this plan allows the flexibility for each community to determine if they would
prefer lower CCTs than these maximums.
The topic of CCT related to visibility and health are currently very active areas of research, with varying
conclusions which are sometimes contradictory. In general, the current body of research, and understanding
of human preferences indicates the following trends, which have been categorized according to the Street
Lighting Master Plan Guideposts:
• Safety – Brightness Perception: Higher CCT’s tend to appear brighter at night, even at lower measured
light levels. This is related to a shift in spectral sensitivity toward blue light in lower light levels
experienced at night under street lighting. While this can have a positive effect on visibility, it can also
have a negative effect of increased glare if not properly controlled. Early LED streetlight conversions
using cool/bluish white (5000K) LEDs installations received significantly negative public reaction.
• Safety – Nighttime Visibility: Higher CCT’s may improve visibility at night, however, some studies are
contradictory. Some street lighting visibility studies show that higher CCT’s result in improved visual
detection distance1. Other studies show lower CCT’s with improved detection distance, however, the
lower CCT may result in fatigue and reduced detection distance over longer periods of time2.
• Safety – Color Identification: Color Rendering is more important than CCT for color identification. This
topic of color identification was noted as a high priority for the Police Department. Prior to LED, lower
CCT light sources like high pressure sodium (HPS) (2200K) and low pressure sodium (LPS) (1800K) also
had very low color rendering index (CRI), making it more difficult to accurately identify colors of
objects seen under these light sources. Newer LEDs that use a phosphor-corrected amber (PC Amber)
to achieve lower CCTs (1800K – 2200K) can have improved CRI that is closer to higher CCT light
sources. The PC Amber light source does not yet have wide-spread use in street lighting, and has not
been included in many street lighting research studies. The proposed pilot studies are an excellent
opportunity for Salt Lake City to evaluate PC Amber LED against standard white-light LEDs that are
based on phosphor-corrected blue LEDs.
• Character – Aesthetics, Personal & Cultural Preference: CCT can evoke a wide variety of emotions or
perceptions, which can vary from person to person. The very warm amber light from streetlights with
lower CCT’s (1800K – 2200K) associated with the legacy light sources of LPS and HPS may be perceived
as “outdated” by some, while others perceive this color as “warm” and “inviting. Higher CCT’s (4000K
+) are often perceived as “institutional” or “sterile”, while some may perceive this as “contemporary”,
“clean” and “crisp”. The proposed pilot studies would allow citizens and stakeholders to express their
subjective opinions and allow the City to make a data-driven decision for what is appropriate in
different areas.
1800K 2200K 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K
Warmer --- Cooler
Private/Intimate --- Public
Residential/Hospitality --- Commercial/Institutional
Historic --- Contemporary
Fuzzy/Dingy --- Crisp/Clean
Comfortable --- Glary
• Responsibility – Human Health: Exposure to too much light at night, especially higher CCT light with
more blue content, can disrupt healthy sleeping cycles, or circadian rhythms, in humans. Light in the
blue spectrum suppresses melatonin, which is needed during the day for people to wake up and be
alert. Exposure to blue spectrum light at night also suppresses or delays melatonin production,
resulting in sleep disruption, which can lead to increased long-term risk of some types of cancer,
including breast cancer and prostate cancer. While higher CCT lighting does play a significant role in
melatonin suppression, it is also important to control light levels, reduce glare, and avoid light trespass
from street lighting. Total exposure to light at night, or dosage of light, is needed to understand the
full impact of street lighting as compared to other light exposure from interior lighting, computer
screens, TVs and light trespass from private property.
• Responsibility – Dark Skies: Higher CCT light sources with more blue spectrum light contribute more to
sky glow than lower CCT light sources. The molecular composition of the Earth’s atmosphere refracts,
or scatters, blue spectrum light, which is why our sky looks blue. Controlling light that is distributed
directly upward into the sky is critical to reducing light pollution. This Street Lighting Master Plan
includes recommendations to reduce light pollution from all decorative lights, including Downtown
and Sugarhouse historic lights and neighborhood pedestrian lighting, such as Rose Park. This Plan also
reduces blue spectrum content, changing from 4000K CCT to 3000K, 2700K and 2200K CCTs,
depending on adjacent land use.
• Responsibility – Behavior of Wildlife and Insects: In general, higher CCT light sources with more blue
spectrum light result in more negative effects on wildlife and insects. All full spectrum white lights
(2700 K and up) are considerably more biologically active than existing HPS lights and new PC Amber
LED lights. Using fully-shielded, low glare lights is also an important factor in reducing impacts to
wildlife and the ecosystem. Limiting light trespass into open space areas and critical wildlife habitats,
and providing adaptive dimming schedules are also included in this Street Lighting Master Plan.
• Equity – What is the Right Thing for each Neighborhood?: Engaging each community in the final
decision for the type of lighting and CCT is an important part of an equitable solution. This process
should include some education on the topics included in this memo and others related to street
lighting, as well as some survey and pilot demonstration to gather data on the opinions of the
residents and business owners in the area. While some areas may want more light and higher CCT for
safety concerns, this should be balanced with a responsible approach that incorporates all the issues
of human and environmental health, especially in residential areas.
More Background Information
1. Engagement Process
The Salt Lake City Street Lighting Masterplan was developed from a multi-level approach with a diverse set of
stakeholders and community members including:
• An Advisory Committee which met six times and included representatives from each City Council
District, Department of Public Utilities, and the Mayor’s Office. The Advisory Committee provided
guidance on policy issues and visioning. This group participated in site tours and surveys, visioning
sessions and progress updates along the way.
• A Technical Committee with City representatives from Police, Fire, Sustainability, Engineering,
Planning and Urban Forestry. The Technical Committee represented the interests of their
departments and contributed to the vision and guiding principles. This group participated in a site
tour to inform their feedback throughout the process.
The material and ideas produced from both groups was them reviewed by a community stakeholder group
with representation from Education, Business, Transit/Multi-modal transportation, and Environmental
organizations. The final draft plan includes input from both committees and feedback received during
stakeholder review. Once the draft document was complete, it received initial review from the City Council
and Planning Commission with a final recommendation to the City Council for adoption.
2. Guideposts: Safety, Character, Responsibility, Equity
a. Safety
i. Brightness Perception
The human eye contains two types of light activated cells in the retina, cones and rods. Cone cells require a
higher light level to be activated, and are responsible for color perception, experienced during the day and
under interior light levels. The rod cells are activated under lower light level conditions typically experienced
at night, and provide only gray-scale visual perception. The cones are more sensitive to the yellow end of the
spectrum and rods are more sensitive to the blue end of the spectrum. All lighting metrics, even for street
lighting use the daytime visual sensitivity curve, yet LED light sources with more blue spectrum content, or
higher CCT, appear brighter under lower light levels than lower CCT light sources. This effect is known as the
Purkinje Shift. This explains why people often perceive LED street lights as “brighter” and “more glary”.
ii. Nighttime Visibility Research
There are multiple studies by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) that study how different street
lighting characteristics affect visibility. These studies measure visual detection distance of objects under
different light levels and CCT’s. Some studies show that higher CCT’s, particularly 4000K – 4100K resulted in
increased visual detection distance, even at 25% of the light level of HPS lights at 2100K1. Yet, the results are
not consistent when comparing CCT and detection distance across multiple studies, and a more recent study
showed that HPS at 2100K resulted in increased visual detection distance than 4000K LED 2.
Figure summarizing studies on detection distance under different roadway lighting in Anchorage, San Jose, San
Diego, and Seattle.
Figure showing comparison of CCT and different light levels on Detection Distance over multiple laps driving
around a test roadway at Virginia Tech Transportation Institute2.
iii. Color Identification
Accurate color identification of objects depends on the spectrum of the light source illuminating the object.
This is measured as Color Rendering Index (CRI), which ranges from 0 – 100, using a broad spectrum light
incandescent source as the reference. The image below shows a red car parked in front of a convenience store
with two different light sources illuminating the car. The parking lot has low pressure sodium lights (CRI - 0)
that have a very narrow, amber color spectrum, which distorts the red color of the car. The front of the car,
near the fluorescent light (CRI - 70) emanating from the convenience store has a broader spectrum of light,
which more accurately renders the red color.
LED light sources commonly used for street lighting with CCT of 2700K – 5000K typically have a CRI of 70 – 80.
The most common legacy light source for street lighting was high pressure sodium (HPS) with a CCT of 2200K
had a CRI of 20 – 35. The image below shows a side-by-side comparison of these light sources (LED on the left,
and HPS on the right) and their resulting ability to render colors in the field of vision.
Newer PC Amber LED light sources provide 2200K and lower CCT with CRI’s ranging from 35 - 68. The higher
range of this CRI is comparable to the lower range of CCT for LEDs with higher 2700K - 5000K. While most
major street lighting manufacturers do not currently offer PC Amber as a standard option, most
manufacturers will consider providing PC Amber as a special modification.
3. Character
a. Perception of Character and Aesthetics
Color temperature of lighting affects many different aspects of human experience. Color temperature is
perceived as cooler (blue) to neutral (white) to warmer (yellow to orange), which is inverse to the
temperature measurement of the ideal black body radiator (or flame temperature). Higher color temperatures
are described as “cooler” and lower color temperatures are described as “warmer”. Color temperature can
also evoke certain emotions or perceptions such as:
1800K 2200K 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K
Warmer --- Cooler
Private/Intimate --- Public
Residential/Hospitality --- Commercial/Institutional
Historic --- Contemporary
Fuzzy/Dingy --- Crisp/Clean
Comfortable --- Glary
Figure 1. Example of PC Amber used in an environmentally sensitive area. https://adlt.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/IMG_7110-620x413.jpg
References 1800K 2200K 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K 5000K 6000K
In Nature Campfire Sunrise/Sunset Moon Daylight
Color
Description Orange Amber Warm White Warm White N eutral White Cool White Cool Blue
Legacy Light
Sources
Low Pressure
Sodium (LPS)
High Pressure
Sodium (HPS)Incandescent Halogen Neutral White
Fluorescent
Cool White
Fluorescent
Daylight
Fluorescent
(Limited Use)
Interior
Lighting Limited Use Dimmed
Hospitality
Residential /
Hospitality
Residential /
Hospitality Office Office /
Healthcare
Office /
Healthcare
(Limited Use)
Exterior
Lighting
Near
Astronomic
Observatories
Street Lighting
before LED
Higher End
Pedestian
Lighting
Early LED Street
Lighting
Installations
Figure 2. Example of 2200 K LED used for environmental and aesthetic sensitivity.
https://www.atpiluminacion.com/files/actualidad/201223_Yamaguchi/atp-iluminacion-yamaguchi-2@2x.png
Figure 3. Example of 2700 K LEDs in the field.
Figure 4. Example of 3000 K LEDs in the field. https://www.clantonassociates.com/our-projects/16th-street-mall
Responsibility (Longcore)
b. CCT / Spectrum & Human Health
Human circadian rhythms can be influenced by exposure to light at night. The mechanism is presumed to be
the suppression of melatonin production. Melatonin is a naturally occurring hormone that is produced by
humans and most organisms during darkness and it plays central roles in regulating human daily rhythms
across all aspects of human physiology. It is also “oncostatic”, meaning that it keeps cancer tumors from
growing. Because exposure to too much light at night suppresses melatonin, unnatural light exposure has
been identified as a risk factor for certain cancers, including breast and prostate cancer. Suppression of
melatonin varies depending on the wavelengths of light, with a peak sensitivity in the light blue. Daylight, with
a color temperature of 6500 K, is very effective at suppressing melatonin production (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Spectral power of daylight (colors) with the overlap with human melatonin suppression sensitivity (lighter colors). Melatonin
sensitivity curve is in the background in gray. Upper left: Daylight (D65), Upper right: 4200 K LED, Lower left: 2200 K LED, Lower right:
1900K High Pressure Sodium. Source: fluxometer.com
The relative power of lights to suppress melatonin can be calculated, and it decreases with color temperature
for standard light sources (Figure 3).
Few studies connect color temperature with health outcomes in the epidemiological literature, perhaps
because the technology to do such studies is only recently becoming available. A study of breast and prostate
cancer in Spain published in 2018 provides initial information, which is consistent with greater effects being
associated with higher color temperatures. In this study, greater blue light outdoors at residences of cancer
patients compared with those of controls was associated with a 47% increased risk of breast cancer and a
doubling in prostate cancer risk3. In contrast, outdoor lighting alone (of all colors) was not associated with
increased risk. The study also accounted for light experienced in the sleeping environment, with a significantly
greater risk of prostate cancer for those sleeping in a “quite illuminated” bedroom, but no statistically
significant result for breast cancer3.
Figure 3. Relative sensitivity of human circadian system, as measured by melatonin suppression, for typical LED light sources and High
Pressure Sodium, compared with an equal brightness of daylight.
Scientists who are skeptical about the potential for outdoor to affect human health point to the intensity
thresholds for melatonin suppression. Based on models of human physiology, they demonstrate that
melatonin suppression is likely to be very small or not measurable below approximately 5 lux4. Since outdoor
lighting rarely reaches these levels within dwellings, the impact is presumed to be minimal, regardless of color
temperature. This argument, however, does not extend to exposures outdoors at night and illumination
under street lighting often exceeds 5 lux.
A precautionary approach to color temperature for human circadian health relative to outdoor lighting would
be to favor the use of lower color temperature lighting (Figure 3), which then would be balanced against other
guideposts.
c. CCT / Spectrum & Critical Wildlife Habitat
i. Tracy Aviary
Color temperature is one factor that influences the degree to which light at night affects wildlife. Depending
on the group of organisms, color may be able to reduce or increase effects a little or a lot. One group where
color is relatively more important is insects, which are, in general, more attracted to blue, violet, and
ultraviolet than yellows and reds. There are exceptions to this pattern, but studies of insect attraction to
different color temperatures of LED find that lower color temperatures attract fewer insects. This relationship
has been quantified and can be used to compare attraction of specific options for street lighting (Figure 4).
For nearly all organisms investigated, lower color temperatures are assessed to have reduce impacts. The
difference between 2700 K and 3000 K tends to be small, and all full spectrum white lights (2700 K and up) are
considerably more biologically active than existing HPS lights.
There is no evidence that color temperature is a driving force in attraction and mortality of migratory birds,
however. Light visible from above affects the distribution of migratory birds 5, 6, but the satellite used for these
studies does not distinguish between colors of light and in fact does not measure blue and violet light at all.
The recommended approach to reduce impacts on migratory birds from roadway lighting is to fully shield
lights to eliminate upward glare and to only use the amount of light necessary so that the reflected light is
kept to a minimum. Current efforts to reduce bird mortality in Salt Lake City by the Tracy Aviary focus on
voluntary efforts by building owners to shut off interior lights during migration. The amount of lighted
window area on buildings correlates with bird collisions 7. The project team discussed these issues with Ms.
Cooper Farr of the Tracy Aviary during the development of the Master Plan.
Figure 4. Relative attractiveness of different LEDs and High Pressure Sodium to insects, as quantified Longcore et al.8 from an insect
attraction curve developed by Donners et al.9
d. CCT / Spectrum & Dark Skies
We followed the work of the Department of Energy with respect to the effect of different color temperatures
on light pollution for astronomical observation 10. The DOE 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. 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. This difference is shown for a range of LEDs and HPS using the “starlight index”11 (Figure 5). 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).
Figure 5. Relative impact of LEDs and HPS compared with a source similar to daylight, using the starlight index9. 2700–3000 K LEDs are
similar in impact to HPS if they are operated with half of the lumen output of the HPS.
4. Equity
This Street Lighting Master Plan strives to provide an equitable approach to the recommendations and
establishment of priorities for implementation. This approach identifies areas that are currently underserved
with street and pedestrian lighting. Some of these areas have expressed concerns of safety, and would prefer
to have more lighting installed in their neighborhood. Other areas, that currently darker and have few street
or pedestrian lights, have expressed concerns about dark skies and light trespass, and would prefer to no
additional lighting it their neighborhood. With these disparate perceptions, this Street Lighting Master Plan
encourages on-going community engagement before implementing any street lighting projects to determine
what lighting strategies the community would prefer.
During this on-going public engagement process, it is important to include some public education about the
issues involved with guideposts, including CCT issues that are discussed in this memo. It is also as important to
implement pilot demonstrations that allow citizens to see and experience the lighting options, including CCT
and dimming, to gather data to make a fully informed decision on the final street and pedestrian lighting
strategies to implement in any neighborhood.
1 Gibbons, Clanton. Seattle LED Adaptive Lighting Study. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 2014. p. 42
2 Bhagavathula, R., R. Gibbons, J. Hanifin, and G. Brainard. LED Roadway Lighting: Impact on Driver Sleep Health and
Alertness, 2021. Pre-publication draft of NCHRP Research. p.
Report 968. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
3 Garcia-Saenz, A., et al., Evaluating the association between artificial light-at-night exposure and breast and prostate
cancer risk in Spain (MCC-Spain study). Environmental Health Perspectives, 2018. 126(4): p. 047011.
4 Grubisic, M., et al., Light pollution, circadian photoreception, and melatonin in vertebrates. Sustainability, 2019. 11(22):
p. 6400.
5 La Sorte, F.A., et al., Seasonal associations with urban light pollution for nocturnally migrating bird populations. Global
Change Biology, 2017. 23(11): p. 4609–4619.
6 McLaren, J.D., et al., Artificial light at night confounds broad-scale habitat use by migrating birds. Ecology Letters, 2018.
21(3): p. 356–364.
7 Parkins, K.L., S.B. Elbin, and E. Barnes, Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist,
2015. 22(1): p. 84–94.
8 Longcore, T., et al., Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night. Journal of
Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology, 2018. 329(8-9): p. 511–521.
9 Donners, M., et al., Colors of attraction: modeling insect flight to light behavior. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A:
Ecological and Integrative Physiology, 2018. 329(8-9): p. 434–440.
10 Kinzey, B., et al., An investigation of LED street lighting’s impact on sky glow. 2017, U.S. Department of Energy (Contract
DE-AC05-76RL01830): Richland, Washington.
11 Aubé, M., J. Roby, and M. Kocifaj, Evaluating potential spectral impacts of various artificial lights on melatonin
suppression, photosynthesis, and star visibility. PLoS ONE, 2013. 8(7): p. e67798.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, April 14, 2021
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for
a period. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of
the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry; Commissioners;
Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara
Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Chairperson Brenda Scheer was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Molly Robinson,
Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Krissy Gilmore, Principal
Planner; Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner; Marlene Rankins, Administrative Assistant; and Aubrey Clark,
Administrative Assistant.
Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry read the Salt Lake City emergency proclamation.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Scheer was not present.
Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, provided the public with instructions on how to participate during the
meeting. He also provided the commission with information regarding how permits and zoning functions
in the City.
CONSENT AGENDA
Red Rock Brewery Brewhouse at approximately 426 West 400 North - Conditional Use and
Conditional Building and Site Design Review Time Extension Requests - MJSA Architects representing
200 West Holding, LC the property owner, is requesting that the Planning Commission grant a one-year
time extension on the Conditional Use and Conditional Building and Site Design (CBSDR) approvals for
a brewery at the above listed address. The Commission originally granted Conditional Use and CBSDR
approval for this project on April 24, 2019. A one-year extension to the Conditional Use approval was
previously granted on April 22, 2020. This request would extend both approvals to expire on April 24,
2022. The project is located within the TSA-UC-T (Transit Station Area Urban Center Transition) zoning
district within Council District 3, represented by Chris Warton. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385-
226-3860 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2018-01008 & PLNPCM2019-00255
APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 24, 2021, MEETING MINUTES.
MOTION
Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Bell seconded the
motion. Commissioners; Bachman, Bell, Hoskins, Lee, Paredes, Urquhart, Young-Otterstrom, and
Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Bookbinder Studios on 2nd West Design Review at approximately 422 South 200 West - A request
by Scott Harwood, representing OZ Opportunity Fund LLC, is requesting Design Review approval to
develop a 7-story, 83’-1" tall residential structure to be located on two contiguous parcels located at 418
S 200 W and 422 S 200 W. The proposed building will encompass 115 studio and one-bedroom units.
The building will have two structured parking levels with 58 parking stalls and five levels of apartment
units above. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for additional building height
and modification to the required building entrances. The project site is located in the D-2 (Downtown
Support) zoning district and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff
contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2021-00035
Krissy Gilmore, 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 with the
conditions listed in the staff report.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on number of parking spaces provided
Scott Harwood, Eric Hansen, and Jonathan Kland, applicants, provided a presentation with further
details.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Clarification on entrance layout
• Whether the entrance is visible from the street or the parking lot
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice Chairperson Barry opened the Public Hearing;
Lisa Hazel – Raised concern with energy efficiency and would like to see bike parking.
Cindy Cromer – Stated that in the East downtown, a building of this height used to be an allowed use.
She also stated she thinks it’s time that something is done about the fact that the planners are spending
time on a request like this, where units that will be available and are modestly priced have been delayed
arriving in the market place by the amount of time that the petition has been in the Planning Department.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Vice Chairperson Barry closed the Public Hearing.
The applicant addressed the public comments.
The commission and applicant discussed the following:
• Clarification on height of structure behind the proposal
• Clarification on whether the City will be undertaking mandatory zoning amendments with the result
of legislative changes
• Affordable Housing Overlay zone
• Design Review ordinance modifications and when a proposal for height should go before the
Commission
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 3
MOTION
Lyon Based on the analysis and findings listed in the staff report, information presented, and the
input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the
Design Review request (PLNPCM2021-00035) for the project located at approximately 422 S 200
W with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Bell, Hoskins, Lee,
Paredes, Urquhart, Young-Otterstrom, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan - Representatives from the Department of Public Utilities
of the City will provide an overview of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan (Plan). 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. The 2020
City Street Light Master Plan includes all areas of the City and will impact all City Council districts. (Staff
Contact: David Pearson, Streetlight Program Manager at (801) 483-6738 or david.Pearson@slcgov.com;
or Marian Rice, Deputy Director at (801) 483-6765 or marian.rice@slcgov.com)
Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, introduced Marian Rice, Deputy Director of Salt Lake City Department
of Public Services, and Jesse Stewart Salt Lake City Department of Public Services.
The following participants were also available for questions:
• Laura Briefer; SLCDPU
• Jesse Stewart; SLCDPU
• Marian Rice; SLCDPU
• David Pearson; SLCDPU
• Dane Sanders, Clanton & Associates;
• Annaka Egan, GSBS;
• Jesse Allen, GSBS;
• Travis Longcore;
Jesse Stewart, provided a presentation with details regarding the proposal.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on how neighborhood byway is defined
• Process when a resident request a light on their street
• Clarification on whether there is a standard number of lights on a street
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice Chairperson Barry opened the Public Hearing;
Lisa Hazel – Stated her opposition of the request.
Judi Short – Provided an email comment that was read into the record requesting to know the type of
public engagement was performed.
Dave Iltis – Stated his opposition of the request in its current form.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Vice Chairperson Barry closed the Public Hearing.
Dane Sanders addressed the public comments and concerns.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 4
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on why the highest amount of kelvin was chosen
MOTION
Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the findings, analysis, testimony and plan presented, I move
that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt
the 2020 Street Lights Master Plan and the accompanying Technical Guidance and
Implementation document. With a recommendation to the City Council:
1. To further explore the warmness of the light and the kelvin temperatures and further
understand that fully.
Commissioner Young-Otterstrom seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Bell, Hoskins,
Lee, Paredes, Urquhart, Young-Otterstrom and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:05 pm.
International Dark-Sky Association
5049 E. Broadway Blvd., #105,
Tucson, AZ 85711 USA
tel +1.520.293.3198
www.darksky.org
Executive Director: Ruskin Hartley
Emeritus Director: David L. Crawford, Ph.D.
Board of Directors: Diane Knutson, President, USA • Kellie Pendoley, Vice President, Australia • Kim Patten, Treasurer, USA • Ken Kattner, Secretary, USA •
Laurel Alyn-Forest, USA • Alejandro Sanchez Miguel, Spain
August 16, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
Salt Lake City Council
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5476
Re: Street Lighting Master Plan
Dear Chair Fowler and Councilmembers:
The International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) is the recognized authority on light pollution and is
the leading organization combating light pollution worldwide. We advocate for a future in which
the night sky, filled with stars, is celebrated and protected around the world as shared heritage
benefitting all living things. Protecting nighttime darkness and promoting quality outdoor lighting
practices have distinct benefits for wildlife, human health and wellbeing, energy security, and pub-
lic safety.
Our vision is encapsulated in Values-Centered Outdoor Lighting (https://www.darksky.org/our-
work/lighting/values-centered-outdoor-lighting/), a resolution adopted by our Board of Directors in
January 2021. These values are in turn described by the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor
Lighting (https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/lighting-principles/) jointly promoted by IDA
and the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES):
1. All light should have a clear purpose
2. Light should be directed only where needed
3. Light should be no brighter than necessary
4. Light should be used only when it is useful
5. Use warmer color lights whenever possible
IDA supports the draft Street Lighting Master Plan that currently under consideration by the Salt
Lake City Council. We find it to be consistent with both Values-Centered Outdoor Lighting and the
Five Principles. It contains the best practices that we encourage for all jurisdictions, and if adopted
it would set a new standard for street lighting plans for large cities.
In particular, the IDA commends specific policy elements of the plan that give it flexibility while not
compromising on core principles. These elements include:
• A flexible approach to allow illumination levels below IES recommendations that en-
courages dimming strategies based on community engagement and that benefits
both dark skies and wildlife (Principles 3 and 4).
• Use of zones for maximum permissible Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) values
that limit 3000 kelvin (K) lighting to commercial zones; sets 2700 K as the maximum
for residential zones without commercial elements; and establishes 2200 K as a
maximum in open space and the industrial zones, which happen to be near sensitive
natural resources in and near the city (Principle 5).
• Inclusion of policy goals to minimize impacts on wildlife and to balance energy effi-
ciency with human and environmental health needs (Principle 1).
• A commitment to shielding decorative street lighting to eliminate uplight (Principles 1
and 2).
• Specific commitment to reduce the obtrusive effects of light at night, including light
trespass onto private property, light pollution affecting the region, and glare that re-
duces visibility and nighttime safety and comfort (Principle 2).
Municipal lighting systems represent a large component of the light pollution generated by cities in
the United States. This plan, when implemented, will reduce light pollution from Salt Lake City and
make it a leader in this field.
We have experience with the successful LED streetlight conversion of Tucson, Arizona, that
measurably decreased the city’s light emissions (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti-
cle/abs/pii/S0022407317308178). Appropriate technology and lighting design approaches are
available to upgrade street lighting systems, reduce energy consumption, and limit the adverse
impacts of excessive artificial light at night. The Salt Lake City plan goes a step further to incorpo-
rate 2200 K lighting in some areas, and offers flexibility to choose lower CCTs in residential and
commercial areas. This plan would put Salt Lake City at the vanguard of outdoor lighting best
practices among world municipalities.
Given the above considerations, we urge the City to adopt the Street Lighting Master Plan.
Yours sincerely,
John C. Barentine, Ph.D.
Director of Conservation
cc: Salt Lake City Council
Hon. Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Street Lighting Master Plan
City Council Presentation
August 17, 2021
Planning Commission Recommendation
SLCDPU Presented to the Salt Lake City Planning
Commission
April 14th 2021
•Planning Commission made a positive recommendation to the City Council to
adopt the Street Lights Master Plan and the accompanying Technical Guidance
and Implementation document.
•Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to further explore the
warmness of the light and the kelvin temperatures, and further understand that
fully.
Engagement Process
Advisory
Committee
Technical
Committee
Residents selected by Council Staff
Represent the interests and concerns of their
district in relation to street lighting.
•SLC Sustainability
•SLC Fire Department
•SLC Police Department
•SLC Transportation
•SLC Engineering
•SLC Planning
•SLC Parks and Public Lands
Salt Lake City
Transportation
Division Salt Lake City
Engineering
Division Salt Lake City
Planning Division
Guideposts
Color Temperature
CCT = 1800K
CCT = 2200K
CCT = 2700K
CCT = 3000K
CCT and Dimming Pilot Study
Dusk to 10pm
Light Criteria
10pm to 12am
Reduce Pedestrian
Criteria
12am to 2am
Light Criteria
2am to Dawn
Reduce to Low Ped
Criteria
Thank You!
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
Te chnology ........................................................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 / Park2
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
• 9
th & 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
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.
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
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
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
Item E6
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
PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Policy and Budget Analyst
DATE:August 17, 2021
RE: FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget
Staff Note: The Council previously approved holding a CIP public hearing on July 13 and August 17
which have been publicly advertised. The Council is tentatively scheduled to continue discussing CIP
and vote on project-specific funding on August 24.
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing.
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
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:August 17, 2021
RE: FY22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: D-1 to D-6
CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Section B, General Fund Projects Sections C & D
NEW INFORMATION
Potential Council Changes to Project Funding
At the July 20 briefing, the Council discussed potential changes to the proposed project-specific funding
including applications not recommended for any funding by the resident advisory board and the Mayor. Council
Members identified specific projects they are interested in fully or partially funding which are listed below. The
Council may wish to discuss which revenue changes to address (General Fund and Class C recaptures and ARPA
eligibilities) before identifying project funding shifts including additional funding to % for Art and Cost Overrun
Account. More on these issues are provided below the list of Council Member identified potential project
funding changes.
-#3 Odyssey House Annex Building Renovation $500,000 Request – Council Member
Valdemoros expressed interest in fully funding this project which is recommended for partial funding of
$300,000 by the resident advisory board and the Mayor. She also supports using American Rescue Plan
Act or ARPA funding for the full request which would free up $300,000 of General Fund dollars for
other projects or uses.
-#54 Wasatch Dee Glen Tennis Court Construction $500,000 Request – Council Member
Dugan expressed interest in fully funding this constituent application. He noted that the tennis courts
provide a service across the City for residents of all ages and socioeconomic levels and that
approximately a third of the 1,000 participants are estimated to come from Council District Six. The
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 18 & June 1, 2021
1st Briefing: June 1, 2021
2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
3rd Briefing: July 20, 2021
4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 17, 2021
5th Briefing & Potential Action: August 24, 2021
Note: The Council approves debt service and
overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project
specific funding is approved by September 1.
Page | 2
local community has fundraised approximately $600,000 for a bubble to go around the tennis courts
which are owned by the City. Reconstruction of the courts with reinforce concrete is necessary before the
bubble could be installed. If the project was fully funded, then it would be the only year-round tennis
court bubble in the City.
-#57 Harrison Avenue and 700 East Community Garden $103,500 Request – On behalf of
Council Member Mano (attending another obligation at the time), Council Members Wharton,
Valdemoros and Dugan indicated he was interested in fully funding this constituent application. It was
noted that the community gardens in the City have been poplar and every location is thought to have a
waiting list.
-#59 Wingate Walkway $286,750 Request – Council Member Rogers expressed interest in funding
this constituent application. The cost includes removing and replanting mature trees, relocating utility
boxes, installing a new 540-foot-long fence and a new concrete path. Planting new trees instead of
attempting to relocate mature trees is estimated to decrease the cost by $67,500.
-#68 Capital Hill Traffic Calming $595,194 Request – Council Members Rogers and Wharton
expressed interest in fully funding this constituent application. It was submitted in FY21 but did not
proceed in CIP last year because of the abbreviated process. The application includes potential locations
and types of traffic calming improvements based on public engagement over the past year and a half.
The Transportation Division is ready to go back to the residents and finalize traffic improvement
locations and types including East Capitol Hill BLVD. The neighborhood is a gateway into the City from
the Northwest. They mentioned this is a life safety project and that there were fatal accidents in the
project area in recent years. The project uses a neighborhood scale approach to traffic calming which is
preferable than street by street because it avoids pitting residents against each other. They noted the
Administration is preparing to send the Council a proposal for traffic calming across the City as a
program but it’s not ready at this time. Their preference is to fund this life safety project as part of CIP in
FY22 and it can be a model for other neighborhood scale traffic calming efforts in the citywide program.
-#72 Sugar House Safe Side Streets $500,000 Request – Council Member Fowler mentioned the
applicant and assigned transportation engineer had developed a modified proposal to phase the project.
The phases include (1) $50,000 study and (2) $450,000 construction, engineering fees and contingency.
An modified proposal for a smaller project was (1) $35,000 study and (2) $265,000 construction,
engineering fees and contingency. Council Member Fowler stated she would like to fund either the
$50,000 study or the modified smaller project for $300,000.
Potential Increase to % for Art and Cost Overrun Accounts
The Council added $1,001,415 of new General Fund dollars to CIP above what was in the Mayor’s Recommended
Budget (not counting recaptured funding from completed CIP projects). If the Council wants to continue the
recommended funding level to the 1.5% for Art Fund, then $15,021 would need to be allocated from the
$1,001,415. The Council could decide to add this amount entirely to the Art Maintenance Fund (created by the
Council this past Spring) or the New Art Fund. Another option is to split between the two accounts. The new Art
Maintenance Fund has an available to spend balance of $20,266 and the % for Art Fund has $114,841 available.
The Cost Overrun Account would need $24,575 to continue the funding level. During the FY22 annual budget
deliberations Council staff reviewed CIP accounts older than three years per the CIP guiding resolution
(Attachment 1). The Cost Overrun Account has a total available to spend balance of $750,606 after including
$100,000 from FY2016 and $219,780 from FY2019.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Eligibility Added to Funding Log
(See Attachment 2 for the Funding Log, Attachment 13 for a map of qualified census tracts, and Attachment 14
for the ARPA Budget Update Infographic)
The CIP Funding Log has been updated to identify projects that are fully or partially eligible for ARPA funding.
This is shown in red text in the Application Title column on the left side of the log. The available funding without
mayoral or advisory board spending recommendations could significantly change to the extent the Council
wants to use ARPA funding for CIP projects. It’s important to note that some of the projects in the Mayor’s
proposed $58 million sales tax bond are also partially or fully eligible for ARPA funding.
At the July 20 briefing, Council Members expressed interest in using ARPA funding for the full $500,000
request from Odyssey House (project #3) which has a $300,000 funding recommendation from the advisory
Page | 3
Board and Mayor. Council Members discussed using the $300,000 from the General Fund for other CIP
projects.
The U.S. Treasury Department provided updated guidance this summer that improving outdoor spaces like
parks can be an eligible use of ARPA funding. This expansion of eligible uses is in addition to broadband, sewer,
and water infrastructure improvements. The investments in outdoor spaces must be in Qualified Census Tracts
as determined by the Federal Government which can viewed here:
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sadda/sadda_qct.html
The FY22 CIP Projects that are ARPA eligible include:
- #3 Odyssey House 100% eligible for $500,000
- #4 Street Improvements 15% eligible for drainage / curb and gutter up to $450,000 of the total
estimated $3 million cost in FY22 for local street reconstructions
- #13 Three Creeks West Bank Trailway 100% eligible for $484,146
- #14 Three Creeks West Bank New Park 100% eligible for $150,736
- #19 Downtown Green Loop partially eligible all of project may not be in a qualified census tract
- #22 Poplar Grove Sportcourt 100% eligible for $433,333
- #25 Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 100% eligible for $510,000
- #29 200 South Reconstruction and Transit Complete Streets 15% eligible for drainage / curb and gutter
up to $1.8 million of the total estimated $12 million cost
- #37 900 South Reconstruction and Signal Improvements for drainage / curb and gutter up to $375,000
of the total estimated $2.5 million cost
- #46 Bridge Rehabilitation at 400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River is partially ARPA eligible.
The bridges were damaged in the March 2020 earthquake. The 650 North bridge needs to be replaced at
an estimated cost of $5.6 million. The Administration applied to UDOT for replacement funding.
o Note that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was recently approved by the Senate
(pending approval by the House and the President’s signature) currently includes $12.5 billion
for “economically significant bridges” nationally, $16 billion for major projects that deliver
substantial economic benefits, and $225 million for bridge replacements and repairs in Utah.
One or both bridges might qualify under the three categories of Federal infrastructure funding.
- #64 9Line Asphalt Pump Track portion of the project is eligible for $615,777 but the Rose Park portion
is outside of a qualifying census tract
The proposed $58 million bond includes two projects that might be eligible for ARPA funding. Both projects
would provide park improvements at multiple locations. Improvements at locations within qualified census
tracts (see map in Attachment 13) would be eligible for ARPA.
- $1.2 million public lands multilingual wayfinding signage partially eligible TBD until more details
available
- $4 million West Side Neighborhood parks partially eligible TBD until more details available
Four Fire Department Applications Additional Info (projects #10, #11, #51 and #52)
Some Council Members requested further details on the four Fire Department applications:
- #10 Training Tower
- #11 Single Family Prop
- #51 Mixed-use Prop and
- #52 Fire Training Ground Improvements
Page | 4
The applications are on the Funding Log in order of the Department’s priorities, that is, the Training Tower is
their top priority, and the Fire Training Ground Improvements is their lowest priority. In addition to Salt Lake
City Fire Department, all the facilities are used by other fire departments in the metropolitan area. Only a
nominal fee is charged for this longstanding practice.
#10 would significantly upgrade the nine-story main fire training facility to keep the training props functional
(near end of life) and improve the safety systems. The tower has been in use since the 1970s and some features
are obsolete including physical equipment and software. 20 years ago, the tower was updated to include
computer operated natural gas fire training props. Finding replacement parts is becoming difficult and the
training tower will no longer be an option for live fire training. The company is pulling working parts from old
facilities around the country and installing here in SLC to keep it operating. The four areas for fire simulation are
a car, apartment, industrial and high-rise. This is a primary training facility and without these upgrades fire
fighters would need to travel elsewhere to conduct some trainings (this is the only facility in Utah that offers
natural gas props training).
#11 is located next to the tower in #10 and the single-family prop is showing significant wear and tear. The
facility provides advanced training specific to this type of building structure to simulate more realistic situations.
The facility is important to provide single-family home trainings given the many neighborhoods in the City have
that type of building.
#51 is three stories tall plus a roof deck. It was not fully built out and there are concerns about the structure not
meeting current engineering standards. This prop would be capable of supporting fire in three different areas
and many areas for search and rescue, ventilation, and other important firefighter training.
#52 is several upgrades to the overall training grounds and former fire station and logistics facility. The former
fire station was remodeled to include two classrooms, training staff offices and a recruit area. The logistics
building is a 20,000 sq. ft. facility. Approximately 45,000 square feet is unused space. The project would build a
mini city for multiple kinds of training including significant areas of pavement so training can include vehicles
(this would provide a more suitable area for vehicle extrication training). A security fence would also be added to
the property possibly including lighting, runoff control, and some landscaping around the perimeter of the
property.
Timeline for Poplar Grove Park New Sport Court
The Administration states that the project is estimated to begin in the first quarter of next year and construction
could be completed in the second quarter of 2023. This timeline is dependent upon Engineering capacity
Allen Park Funding and Projects Additional Info (project #21)
Some Council Members requested further details on how the $450,000 for Allen Park in FY21 CIP relates to the
$420,000 requested in FY22 CIP (project #21) and the $1.3 million in the Mayor’s proposed bond. The
Administration provided the below response about the three different amounts.
“$450K in reallocated Bond Funds (“Allen Park Urgent Property Protection, Planning & Public Access”)
provided in 2020: These funds are being used for critical infrastructure upgrades, securing/stabilizing
some of the houses, and laying the groundwork for an Adaptive Re-use and Activation Plan, as described
in my email yesterday. Two answer two specific questions raised by CM Fowler: (1) we are using these
funds to establish power to facilitate food trucks, art & music events, and are gearing up for a series of
monthly art events running September through December 2021, and (2) water and septic systems
currently on the property are completely unusable, so full utility upgrades are required. We are working
to address these upgrades with this funding source to the extent that funds allow and will target
additional utility upgrades with Community Reinvestment Bond Funds.
$420K in requested FY22 CIP funding (“Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at
Allen Park”) potentially approved September 2021: The scope of the Preparing for Historic Structure
Renovation & Activation at Allen Park CIP Project includes development of plan sets, construction
documents and cost estimates for improvements that further the public vision for re-activation of the
space, and in particular the historic structures, as a home for the ongoing creation of artwork, in a form
that is available for the public to enjoy and appreciate. These funds would also facilitate the completion
of the Allen Park Adaptive Reuse & Activation Plan, with additional public & stakeholder engagement.
Page | 5
$1,300,000 in requested Community Reinvestment Bond Funds: These funds will be used in large part
to construct structural, safety and functional improvements for historic structures, with the goal of
utilizing them as separate art studio spaces and a restroom / supplies washroom. It is difficult to say
how many buildings and studio spaces will be made fully functional with these funds until construction
documents are corresponding cost estimates are completed. We anticipate a small portion of the funds
will go toward repair and stabilization of exterior art pieces on the Allen Property, and possibly to
support modest lighting and landscaping upgrades and/or improvements to pathways throughout the
site.”
Sugar House Local Link Study Construction Additional Info (project #32)
Some Council Members requested details from the draft study about how the requested funding would be used
to implement the recommendations.
“Our top priority with the requested funding is to finish building out the Parley’s Trail on Highland
Drive and Sugarmont Drive as shown in the image below. We anticipate that the improvements of
Parley’s Trail and 1300 East will use all of the budget requested this year. We anticipate making this an
annual request until these projects are completed.
Note: this view is looking to the Northwest
Essentially – we are talking about using this funding to help build and enhance the “green line” section
that runs N-S on Highland Drive between Sugarmont Drive and the new Hawk signal near Sprague
Library, and the section on Sugarmont between Highland Drive and the improvements that have been
constructed by Boulder Ventures. We plan on doing much of this work with our Highland Drive
reconstruction – but will still have a small gap between the Zions Bank property and the RDA property
on Sugarmont, we also would like to use this funding to both construct that section and enhance the
Highland Drive project to ensure that the elements we are planning on implementing with the
reconstruction don’t get cut from the project due to budget constraints. Sections of the Parley’s Trail on
private property (orange lines through Sugar House Comments, or Red line through the Shopko block)
would require additional coordination with developers as these properties redevelop.”
#33 Corridor Transformations, #36 Neighborhood Byways and #42 Kensington Byway
Some Council Members asked how these three CIP applications are related and to what extent they overlap in
allowable uses. The Administration provided the below response about the three different applications.
Page | 6
“#33 Corridor Transformations is generally considered to address arterial or collector “through” streets,
compared to neighborhood byways which use smaller residential streets that are often not continuous.
#42 Kensington Byway generally would not be considered as part of this programmatic request.
Corridor Transformations originally requested $856,042 with a budget detail showing $406,200 to
600/700 North ($572,742 including engineering design, construction management, contingency, etc);
$130,000 to 2100 South ($183,300 with fees and contingency); and $100,000 to initiate a corridor
study of South Temple, a priority ranked street from Transportation’s equity and project prioritization
analysis.
#36 Neighborhood Byways is the programmatic request that is analogous to the Kensington
Neighborhood Byway. Yes, these funds could instead be used to fund Kensington, but at the cost of
eliminating or significantly reducing two other neighborhood byways on which the Transportation
Division has already been conducting civic engagement: $277,096 for the 800 East Neighborhood
Byway Phase 1 design (800 South to 2700 S, following out of 2020’s Open Streets neighborhood
interest, enthusiasm, and support); and $597,904 for the Poplar Grove Neighborhood Byway network
(remaining intersections not able to be constructed with recent CDBG grant). The programmatic request
also included $35,000 to initiate community collaboration and project concept design for two new key
neighborhood byways: Sugar House to the U, and Westpointe/Jordan Meadows. Additionally is
proposed $100,000 to develop a neighborhood byway design manual and community collaboration
toolkit which will make development of future neighborhood byways more streamlined and efficient.
#42 Kensington Neighborhood Byway at the $500,000 funding level will serve as match to federal
grants received by the Transportation Division from WFRC through the Transportation Alternatives
Program (with overlapping extents to the CIP request), to provide a total project budget of
approximately $1.5 million which will allow the byway to be constructed from West Temple to the
McClelland Trail.”
Wasatch Tennis Court Reconstruction Impact Fee Eligibility (project #54)
The CIP application identifies this project as eligible for parks impact fee funding. However, upon further
evaluation the Administration determined the project is ineligible for parks impact fee funding because there is
no service level enhancement to account for population growth. The project is only replacing an existing use at
the same service level.
Construction Mitigation Funding in CIP Requests
Some Council Members asked to what extent, if any, do street reconstruction projects and other public-right-of-
way projects include funding for construction mitigation? The Council expressed interest in funding
construction mitigation as a standard part of all street reconstruction projects like the built-in contingency
percentage. The Council also asked for clarification on what specific measures will be used with the $200,000
construction mitigation funding. The Administration provided the following response:
“In short, Engineering includes the cost of business construction mitigation in project budgets but not as
an itemized line. Mitigation comprises a construction guide, signage, outreach, meetings, and
personalized response to affected businesses. Going forward as project budgets are developed, the
estimated cost for mitigation will be pulled out as a line item. The actual cost will depend on the number
of businesses that are affected and the complexity and duration of the project.
Economic Development is evaluating the proposed $200,000 construction mitigation program.”
Updated Cost Estimates for Regular CIP Projects (Attachment 8)
The Administration provided updated cost estimates for CIP projects that regularly come up. The updated
Attachment 8 includes the prior FY2019 (calendar year 2018) cost estimates next to a column showing the 2021
estimates. Some categories have seen significant increases while others have closer to typical inflation rate
increases. The Engineering provided some context that the City doesn’t know to what extent the larger price
increases are temporary (such as related to pandemic caused short-term supply chain disruptions) or longer-
term trends. Overall, prices are estimated to be up 10% to 14% according to Engineering.
Surplus Land Fund
The current available to spend balance of the Surplus Land Fund is $2,287,531. See the Additional Info section
for more on the Fund.
Page | 7
Description for $3.4 Million Bond Investment in Westside Parks
The Administration provided the below description for the $3.4 million investment in Westside Parks that is
part of the Mayor’s proposed $58 million bond (Attachment 4). The Council is tentatively scheduled to hold
separate briefings about that bond proposal later summer and/or fall.
The $3.4 million listed in the bond proposal for Westside Parks will cover robust community engagement,
park design and construction of new improvements to Modesto, Poplar Grove and Jackson Parks. Utilizing
this funding for the Westside Parks is consistent with Strategy W-1 of the Reimagine Nature Public Lands
Master Plan which states “Neighborhood parks are designed and programmed to highlight the unique
natural, historical, cultural and economic identity of the surrounding area and community in which they are
located.” The policies that support this major strategy which will be included in the project scope include
data collection on park use and engagement, engaging the surrounding community in the visioning of public
spaces with particular emphasis on fostering engagement with under-represented groups, and enhancing
community pride and placemaking characteristics within the parks. The overarching purpose of the funding
is to create high-quality experiences within these parks. As defined by the Urban Land Institutei, high-
quality parks are in excellent physical condition, are accessible to all potential users, provide positive
experiences and are relevant to the communities they serve, and are flexible to changing circumstances.
These are all standards that will be sustained in the development of this project. Based on these qualities,
the specific goals for the Westside Parks project are as follows:
•Improve west side parks so that they are in excellent physical condition. Evaluate the condition of all
assets to determine replacement or rehabilitation needs.
•Improve circulation in the park and access to the park so that it is accessible to all potential users.
Create a circulation network in the park to encourage walking and improve access to park amenities
and the neighborhood.
•Collaborate with the community to identify multiple uses and opportunities to a wide variety of
users. This may include new passive recreation areas or new active recreation options.
•Include placemaking elements that are relevant to the communities they serve and accurately reflect
the community character. This might include public art, interpretive signage or the development of
special use or gathering areas.
•Improve the climate resilience of the landscape by reducing the amount of underutilized turf and
replace it with a regionally appropriate and biodiverse planting composition and potential
accompanying irrigation. Include more shade trees and pollinator gardens.
Funding will specifically go towards hiring of a consultant for comprehensive public engagement and
design, and a contractor for construction of the project. Project scope will be developed with public
input and may need to be phased based on costs and funding capacity.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the July 13 briefing, the Council reviewed the full Funding Log (Attachment 2) and identified several follow
up questions. Those questions were sent to the Administration and are copied below for reference. Responses
are expected to be available for the August 17 briefing. Some Council Members also identified projects without a
funding recommendation from the advisory board and the Mayor which they are interested in funding. Below
are updates on changes to recapture funding amounts, the Administration’s responses to policy questions from
June and project #75 the 600 North Corridor Transformation. Staff is working with the Administration to
determine how much of project #3 Odyssey House Annex Building Renovations is eligible for American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) funding and under new guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department if additional CIP projects
may qualify.
$150,753 Decrease in Class C (gas tax) Funds Recapture
The Administration reports $150,753 is still needed of the $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funds from completed
projects that the Council recaptured as part of the annual budget. This means the new recaptured balance is
$58,228, and that a correction will need to be made in a budget amendment to move the $150,753 back to the
original projects so pending invoices can be paid. The situation could be an example of a system improvement
opportunity for communication between departments and divisions. The projects in question were completed
from a construction and engineering perspective but some post-construction invoices have not been paid. The
new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system might help in similar situations in the future by improving the
City’s ability to track and coordinate on finances and assets.
Page | 8
$38,334 Increase in General Fund Recapture
The Administration reports $38,334 in additional General Fund dollars can be recaptured for use in FY22 CIP.
Three projects were completed and had remaining funds encumbered but are no longer needed. This funding
will need to be part of a budget amendment to formally be added into FY22 CIP since they were not part of the
annual budget. General Fund dollars are the most flexible CIP funding source and can go to any project.
Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions (Attachment 12)
The Administration’s responses to the Council’s policy questions are available in Attachment 12. The
Administration will be available to discuss with the Council the responses and potential next steps at the July 20
meeting. The Council may wish to identify policy interests for follow up after adoption of the FY22 CIP project
specific funding (September 1 deadline). Some of the issues could benefit from additional time and discussion to
improve existing processes and policies.
Project #75 600 North Corridor Transformation Diagrams, Preferred Concept and Goals
See Attachments 10 and 11
The Transportation Division provided Attachment 10 which has diagrams of six segments along the corridor
showing potential changes to the public right of way based on public engagement to-date. Public engagement
included pop-up events, several meetings, community events before the pandemic, an online survey in the
spring this year and presented to community councils. Attachment 11 is a longer document summarizing the
narrative and goals for the current preferred concept. A final preferred concept is expected to be available later
this summer or fall.
Several funding sources (Federal, State, UTA and City) have been identified but the project is not yet fully
funded. Note that the $58 million bond proposal includes $4 million for this project. The description states the
total project cost is $8.7 million but that may not be enough to fully fund the project given construction inflation
the City experienced in other recent projects. Fully funding the street reconstruction would mean less disruption
to the neighborhood (one construction period instead of two) and some modest mobilization cost savings and
efficiencies from a consolidated design. Also, a final preferred concept based on more public engagement and
updated engineering designs will inform the project’s total estimated cost later this year. Construction is
expected to be done in phases.
In recent years, the Council funded safety improvements to the 600 North and 800 West intersection and a
study of the 600 North Corridor. The total corridor is from 2200 West to Wall Street with three primary
segments within: 2200 West to Redwood Road, Redwood Road to I-15, and then several blocks from I-15 to Wall
Street. The project builds upon the upcoming Frequent Transit bus route on 600 North which is part of
implementing the City’s Transit Master Plan with UTA. For example, the partnership with UTA includes new bus
stops and improvements to existing bus stops along the corridor. UTA is paying for those new and improved bus
stops and long-term maintenance. The City is paying for the concrete pads.
Council Follow Up Questions to Administration
The below questions were sent to the Administration following the July 13 briefing. Responses are expected to be
available for the Council’s August 17 CIP briefing.
What is the available to spend balance of:
o The Art Maintenance Fund?
o The New Art Fund?
o The CIP Cost Overrun Account?
o The Surplus Land Fund?
Could you please help update the attached spreadsheet listing general cost estimates for regular CIP
projects? This was last updated in July 2019 and we know costs for some construction materials have
experienced significant inflation during the pandemic. And feel free to add rows for new projects if
departments think those additions would be helpful.
Is the FY22 list of projects for the Facilities capital asset replacement need to be updated given that the
FY21 funding was recaptured for the emergency Central Plant boiler replacements?
Page | 9
Could you please provide a written description of the $3.4 million for westside parks that’s listed as part
of the $58 million bond proposal? The bond is separate from but related to CIP and this information
would help the Council evaluate the City’s overall investments in parks and public lands and individual
project proposals.
#10 Training Tower, #11 Single Family Prop, #51 Mixed-use Prop and #52 Fire Training Ground
Improvements – Is there a comparison available between these four fire applications to help the Council
understand the similarities, differences, benefits, locations, etc? My recollection from the advisory board
presentation is that:
o The order on the funding log is the Fire Department’s order of priority between the four projects
o #10 would significantly upgrade the nine story main fire training facility
▪It’s been in use since the 1970s and the tower is almost obsolete
▪The company is pulling working parts from old facilities around the country and
installing here in SLC to keep it operating
▪There are four areas for fire simulation and all are nearing end of life
▪This is a primary training facility and without these upgrades fire fighters would need to
travel elsewhere to conduct some trainings
o #11 is located next to the tower in #10
▪The facility provides advanced training specific to this type of building structure
▪There are five different training areas
▪The facility is important to provide single-family home trainings given the many
neighborhoods in the City with that type of building
o #51 is three stories tall plus a roof deck
▪It was not fully built out and there are concerns about the structure not meeting current
engineering standards
▪There are eight training areas
o #52 is several upgrades to the overall training grounds and former fire station and logistics
facility
▪Approximately 45,000 square feet of unused space
▪The project would build a mini city for multiple kinds of training
▪Add significant areas of pavement so training can include vehicles
▪A security fence would also be added to the property
▪All of the facilities are used by other fire departments in the area
▪Only a nominal fee is charged for this longstanding practice
#22 Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt – Could you please provide a general timeline for
this project?
#33 Corridor Transformations, #36 Neighborhood Byways and #42 Kensington Byway – To what extent
do these three funding requests overlap in allowable uses? Are there elements of #42 that could be
funded by #33 and/or #36?
#32 Local Link Construction – Could you please provide some details from the draft study about how
this funding would be used? For example, is there an implementation and projects section that could be
shared with the Council? We understand this funding request is intended to provide general flexibility
for complete street enhancements to planned reconstructions but additional examples at specific
locations would be helpful context.
#54 Wasatch Tennis Court Reconstruction – What percentage of this project is parks impact fees
eligible?
Council-added Funding to CIP
As part of the FY22 annual budget adoption, the Council added $3,245,759 to the CIP budget. This additional
funding brought CIP from 6.1% in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget up to 7.2% of ongoing General Fund
revenues. The added funding includes three components:
- $1,879,654 or the upcoming 600 North Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in
a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted and the Council placed the
Page | 10
excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding account. The full amount from the holding
account was appropriated for this project.
- $1,157,124 in General Fund dollars available for any project and these do not have funding
recommendations from the CDCIP Board or the Mayor. The CDCIP Board did recommend the Council
consider the Board’s combined project scoring as a guide for any additional funding. The scoring is
available in Attachment 5. Of this additional funding, $155,709 was recaptured from previously
completed projects.
- $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funding which was recaptured from previously completed projects. See
Additional Info section for allowable uses of Class C funds are determined by state law.
Updated Funding Log
Attachment 2 has been updated since the June briefing to reflect Council-added funding, the 600 North corridor
transformation project, reformatting the spreadsheet to include the Council’s funding decisions and several
other improvements.
The following might be helpful in navigating the Funding Log:
- The first column on the far left identifies the ID# for every project to allow easier reference.
- The second column has the short-title for each application. Council staff added a note where an
application overlaps with a project proposed in the Mayor’s $58 million bond proposal
- The third column “Scope of Work” provides a project description and often a cost breakdown with
further details.
- The blue heading columns are the CDCIP and Mayor funding recommendations. This year, the two sets
of funding recommendations are identical exception for application #42 on Page 13 which the CDCIP
Board did not recommend funding but the Mayor recommends full funding.
- The green heading columns furthest to the right are the Council’s funding decisions. Staff copied the
Mayor’s funding recommendations into these columns as a starting place for the Council’s deliberations.
- The top right corner shows the “Available Funding” for each funding source. These amounts reflect
funds that have not been appropriated to an application.
- Note that all text in blue on the Funding Log was added by Council staff.
Policy Questions Update
Per Council Members request at the June briefing, staff sent all the policy questions to the Administration.
Responses were forthcoming at the time of publishing this staff report. The Council also identified an additional
policy question during unresolved issues briefings which has been sent to the Administration and is copied
below:
- To what extent, if any, do street reconstruction projects and other public-right-of-way projects including
funding for construction mitigation? The Council expressed interest in funding construction mitigation
as a standard part of all street reconstruction projects similar to the built in contingency percentage. The
Council also asked for clarification on what specific measures will be used with the $200,000
construction mitigation funding.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year, the Council appropriates the overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
and approves debt payments as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews
individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and
competitive process where residents, local organizations and City departments submit project applications. The
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the
applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor
provides a second set of funding recommendations to the Council which ultimately decides project specific
funding. Note that for FY 21 the Administration conducted an abbreviated CIP process which did not include
outside applications.
As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies (Attachment 1), a CIP
project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical
structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant
functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as
part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from
projects that finished under budget or were not pursued.
Page | 11
Overview of the FY22 CIP Budget
The total FY22 CIP budget is $34.7 million which is $5.5 million (19%) more than last year. Only looking at the
ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP excluding Funding Our Future shows a decrease of $456,798 (3%) less
than last year.
•$5.5 Million Overall Increase – This is largely due to a $4.9 million increase from the new funding source
County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets and a $3.2 million increase in impact fees.
•$456,798 Decrease in General Fund Transfer – The proposed ongoing General Fund (excluding Funding
Our Future dollars) transfer is $14.1 million to CIP which is 6.1% of the ongoing FY22 General Fund
budget. If the Council wishes to increase the CIP funding level to 7% an additional $2,775,049 is needed.
The Council would need to identify corresponding cuts in other General Fund expenses or revenue
increases.
•$5.7 Million Unrestricted Funds – The sources of CIP funds are detailed further in the chart below.
$5,705,720 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted funds available for any new
projects (the most flexible funding available).
•$10.7 Million Debt Payments and Ongoing Commitments – $10.7 million (58%) of the General Fund
transfer to CIP (including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments. However, it
should be noted that $3,657,667 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed bond that the
Council has not discussed in detail or approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY22
project applications if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. Overall,
debt service is 30% of ongoing CIP funding which is a significant improvement over FY21 when the debt
load was 46%. The drop is because a sales tax revenue bond was paid off in FY21.
Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year
Significant changes to CIP in FY22 and in upcoming years include:
C I P Fu n di n g So u rc es A do p t ed
2 0 19 -2 0
A do p t ed
2 0 2 0 -2 1
Pro p o sed
2 0 2 1-2 2
FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2
$ C h an ge
FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2
% C h an ge
Ge ne r a l Fund 1 5 ,2 3 9,4 7 9$ 1 4 ,5 82 ,2 6 7$ 1 4 ,1 2 5 ,4 6 9$ (4 5 6 ,7 9 8)$ -3 %
Fund ing Ou r Fu tur e *6 ,1 6 9,3 6 7$ 4 ,880 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ (1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ -2 7 %
Class C 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 1 %
I m p a c t Fe e **4 ,5 6 7 ,9 1 3$ 5 ,0 5 8,0 1 1$ 8,2 7 6 ,1 0 3$ 3 ,2 1 8,0 9 2$ 6 4 %
CDBG -$ -$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ ONE-TI ME
Re p u r p o se Old CI P A c c o unts 3 ,5 7 2 ,9 6 8$ 1 ,1 4 9,6 1 6$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME
Co u nt y 1 /4 ¢ Sa le s Tax ***N/A N/A 4 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ NEW NEW
Sur p lu s Land Fu nd 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ 0 %
Sm it h 's Nam ing Right s
Re v e nu e 1 5 9,5 85$ 1 5 6 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ (2 ,0 0 0 )$ -1 %
SLC Sp o r ts Co m ple x ESCO 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 5 4 ,7 0 6$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ (6 ,2 0 1 )$ -4 %
Me m o r ial Ho u s e Re nt Re v e nu e 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ -$ 0 %
TOTA L 3 3 ,1 2 6,3 7 1$ 2 9 ,2 2 6,2 6 2$ 3 4 ,7 7 3 ,4 4 5$ 5 ,5 4 7 ,1 83$ 1 9 %
TOTA L w it h o ut ONE-TI ME 2 9 ,5 3 0 ,5 1 1$ 2 8,0 7 6,6 4 6$ 3 4 ,4 5 1 ,4 4 5$ 6 ,3 7 4 ,7 9 9$ 2 3 %
*I nc lu d e s % t o CI P "o ff t h e to p ," transit a nd pu b lic rig h t o f w a y infrastru c t ure . A ls o , fund ing so u rc e is o ng o ing
b ut Co u nc il c o u ld c h a ng e th e u s e c ate g o rie s in t h e futu re
**Th e re are fo u r im p a c t fe e ty p e s: fire , p arks, p o lic e a nd s tre e t s
No te : FY 2 1 & FY 2 2 inc lude s a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o pe re d u c tio n w h ic h is no t se pa ra t e d o u t in th e t a b le
ab o v e
***Ne w re v e nu e so u rc e in FY 2 1 w h ic h t h e Co u nc il dire c t e d b e inc lude d in CI P fo r FY 2 2 a nd th e re a fte r, lim it e d to
tra nsp o rta tio ni and st re e t infra s truc t u re use s
Page | 12
FY22 is the third year with a CIP Budget Book detailing individual projects and debts.
Administration is continuing work on creating a Capital Facilities Plan (10-year comprehensive CIP plan).
Updates to all four sections (fire, parks, police, and streets/transportation) of the Impact Fees Facilities
Plan that was funded by the Council in Budget Amendment #6 of FY19 of which three are pending.
An approximately $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 which removes $5.3 million of annual debt
payments. The Mayor is recommending a new, smaller bond for several capital improvement projects. See
Additional Info section for debt load projections chart and Attachment 4 for a spreadsheet summarizing
the proposed $58 million bond-funded projects.
No constituent applications were considered for funding in FY21 as part of an abbreviated CIP process,
rather they were carried over into FY22 CIP resulting in a higher number competing for limited funds
Three Differences in Advisory Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
(See Attachment 2 for Funding Log and Attachment 3 for the CIP Budget Book)
Board and Mayoral funding recommendations are detailed at the bottom of each project page in the CIP Budget
Book and on the CIP Funding Log. The CIP Log is Attachment 2 which first shows projects the Mayor is
recommending for funding and then projects which are not recommended for funding. This year the funding
recommendations from the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident
advisory board and the mayor are nearly identical with three differences listed below.
- The Board did not recommend funding for the Kensington Byway on Andrew Ave. from West Temple to
Main Street and Kensington Ave. from Main Street to 800 East (note that the street has different names
on either side of Main Street). The Mayor recommends fully funding the project using $500,000 from
Funding Our Future Streets. Note that several projects scored higher by the Board but are not
recommended for funding or less than full funding.
- Fully funding the 900 South Signal Improvements project (from 900 West to Lincoln Street) with
slightly different sources. The Mayor proposes to use $100,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for
transportation and streets and $233,500 from Funding Our Future Streets while the Board proposes to
use $333,500 from Funding Our Future Streets.
- Mostly funding Transportation Safety Improvements project with slightly different sources. The Mayor
proposes to use $400,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets while the Board
proposes to use $400,000 from Funding Our Future Streets.
Use Combined Project Scores from CDCIP Board as Guide if Additional Funding is Available
(See Attachment 5 for a summary sheet of Board votes and combined scores)
The CDCIP Board scored and voted on each CIP application. The Board recommends that their combined
scoring be used as a guide for how to spend additional CIP funding if it becomes available for FY22 projects. The
combined scores are shown in the right-most column and votes in the adjacent column. Note that board
members may not have voted on a project because they were unavailable at the time (technical difficulties or not
at the public meeting) or they couldn’t decide.
Over $300 Million Unfunded Capital Needs and the Mayor’s New $58 Million Bond Proposal
(See Attachment 4 pages three and four for a spreadsheet summarizing the proposed bond-funded projects)
Last year, the Council discussed the upcoming opportunity of an approximately $80 million sales tax revenue
bond being paid off in 2021. This removed a $5.3 million annual debt payment from CIP which has been paid
using General Fund dollars. Council Members expressed interest in holding further discussions on how best to
prioritize use of this funding opportunity (assuming available revenues) given that the City’s unfunded capital
needs significantly exceed $5.3 million. The Mayor is proposing a new $58 million bond with an estimated $3.6
million annual debt payment. Note that some of the projects would be issued under a tax-exempt bond while
others would need to be a separate taxable (more expensive) bond. Also, the total cost of the bond is greater than
the sum of the individual projects because it includes the cost of issuance and a contingency up to the $58
million maximum proposed. The proposed capital improvement projects include:
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
- $2.5 Million for Central Plan electrical transformer upgrade
- $3 Million for Warm Springs historic structure stabilization
- $1.7 Million for an urban wood reutilization equipment and storage additions
- $1.5 Million for Fisher Mansion improvements
- $7.5 Million for Fisher Mansion restoration
- $3 million for improvements to the Ballpark
Page | 13
Note that the City has $47.7 million in total deferred facilities needs
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
- $4 Million for 600 North complete street transformation
- $1 Million for cemetery road repairs
- $6.1 Million for railroad quiet zones on the West Side (trains would stop blowing horns at crossings)
Note that the City is about halfway through the 2018 voter-approved $87 Million Streets Reconstruction Bond.
More ongoing funding for street reconstructions and overlays will be needed after the bond funds are gone.
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
- $1.2 Million public lands multilingual wayfinding signage
- $440,000 for Jordan River Paddle Share Program at Exchange Club Marina 1700 South
- $1.3 Million for Allen Park activation of historic structures
- $3.4 Million for West Side neighborhood parks
- $5 Million for Foothills trail system phases 2 and 3 trailheads and signage
o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $1.7 million in FY22 CIP for this project
- $5.2 Million for improvements to Pioneer Park
- $10 Million for redevelopment of the Glendale Water Park
o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $3.2 million in FY22 CIP for this project
Over $300 Million in Unfunded Capital Needs over the Next Decade
Below is a short list of the City’s unfunded capital needs from large single-site projects to long-term best
management of capital assets like buildings, streets, and vehicles. This list is not comprehensive, and some costs
may be higher since originally estimated. The total unfunded needs of the below list exceed $300 million and
may be closer to $500 million depending on the specifics of new construction projects in the first bullet point.
Note that these estimates for new assets do not include maintenance costs. If the City had a Capital Facilities
Plan, then it would be a mechanism to identify, track, prioritize and schedule unfunded capital needs over a
long-term horizon.
$TBD new construction and major redevelopments: Fleet Block, Eastside Police Precinct, multiple aging
fire stations, The Leonardo (old library), expansion of the S-Line Streetcar, downtown TRAX loop, quiet
zones and undergrounding rail lines that divide the City’s west and east sides, implementing rest of the
9-Line and McClelland urban trails, historic structures like Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs, etc.
$133 million over ten years (in addition to existing funding level) to increase the overall condition index
of the City's street network from poor to fair
$50.9 million above the FY22 recommended funding level over next 10 years to fully fund the City’s
Fleet needs
$47.7 million over ten years to bring all City facilities out of deferred maintenance
$25 million for capital improvements at the City Cemetery, of which $12.5 million is for road repairs
$20 million for a new bridge at approx. 4900 West from 500 South to 700 South
$6 million for planned upgrades to the Regional Athletic Complex
$3.1 million for downtown irrigation system replacement
$1.3 million for solar panels, parking canopy and security upgrade at Plaza 349
Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years
(Attachment 9)
The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) requests that remaining funds from completed
projects be recaptured and that remaining funds from unfinished projects over three years old also be
recaptured. The table in Attachment 9 is staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy guidance for CIP
projects. 53 projects are listed most of which received General Fund dollars and are over three years old. Several
projects also received Class C funds, CDBG funds or are old donations. The total funding is just over $4.2
million. Some of this funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses,
however, the Class C, CDBG and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the Administration to
identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response and potential
funding to recapture by project will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings.
Council Member Rogers’ Proposal
Page | 14
During the Non-Departmental budget briefing on May 25, Council Member Rogers expressed interest in using
some or all the $1,879,654 in the Funding Our Future transit holding account for the 600 North complete street
transformation project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted
and the Council placed the excess funds into the holding account. Council staff is meeting with Transportation
Division staff to better understand the project scope, phases, cost estimates and existing funding.
The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North
complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with
recent construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent
years the Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a
safety study of the 600 North corridor.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may
wish to discuss if the proposed bond funding by category (listed below) aligns with the Council’s policy
priorities. The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ Million unfunded
capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new
assets. The Council is scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also
reviewing individual CIP projects.
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
2.American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for CIP – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to review all CIP applications for FY22 to determine which, if any project, are eligible for
ARPA funding. The U.S. Treasury release eligibility guidance after the advisory board and Mayor
provided project funding recommendations to the Council. A review for ARPA feasibility could be
completed in time for the Council’s July and August project-specific funding deliberations.
3.Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide policy guidance on disqualifying an
application such as if it violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy
document, if the primary beneficiary would not be the public, if the City should no longer allow
constituent street reconstruction applications because the City’s chosen strategy is reconstructing the
worst first based on a data-driven process, etc.
4.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for
neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest
in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.
Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some
projects get more support from departments than others.
5.Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of Surplus Land Fund – The
Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to advance this legislative intent. The Council
may also wish to ask the Administration what challenges exist to provide an accounting of vacant
building maintenance costs and whether a property management contract approach could be more
efficient. See Additional Info section for more on the Surplus Land Fund. In Budget Amendment #1 of
FY20 the Council adopted the following legislative intent:
The Council expresses the intent to fund ongoing property maintenance expenses out of the Public
Services Department and/or Community and Neighborhoods Departments’ (CAN) budget rather than
continuing to use one-time revenues from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the
Administration include this approach based on actual expenses in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget
for FY2021. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift funding for a CIP-related
FTE away from the Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget.
Page | 15
6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to
facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety
of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic by topic email requests to consolidated monthly
reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested
constituents.
7.Additional 0.20% County Sales Tax for Transit Option (not currently collected/levied) – The
State Legislature authorized this optional county sales tax for transit capital improvements and services.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration about any discussions with the County or plans
regarding this potential funding source. For example, could partnering with the County help implement
the City’s Transit Master Plan, downtown TRAX loop and/or undergrounding railway lines that divide
the City? Under current state law, the option to enact the additional sales tax expires at the end of FY23.
8.Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update
on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes
capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing
in January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals,
metrics, and requests.
9.Balancing Funding for Streets and Transportation – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how to balance funding for streets and transportation in coming years between Class C
funds which goes to street reconstructions and overlays with the new County 1/4¢ sales tax which goes
to transportation. Both of those funding sources are eligible for streets and transportation uses but are
only going to one of the two uses. There may be a need for greater ongoing streets funding when the
voter-approved 2018 Streets Reconstruction Bond funds are all spent.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Surplus Land Fund (See Policy Question #7)
The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City
policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property and some funds may be diverted into the
Housing Trust Fund. The funds are one-time because the real property can only be sold once. The FY22 budget
proposes to continue a $200,000 appropriation to the CAN Department for property maintenance expenses
such as utilities, security, and minor repairs. This is using one-time funding for an ongoing expense.
Cost Overrun Account
The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula
determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total
Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration
to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to
the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying
projects until the Council can act in a budget amendment which typically takes a few months.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (See Attachment 7)
The Council approved several million dollars in impact fee projects the past few years. Attachment ??? is the
most recent impact fee tracking report from the Administration. The table below is current as of April 20, 2021.
Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds.
The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $6,800,450 of parks impact fees and $491,520 of streets
/ transportation impact fees.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,002,114 More than a year away -
Parks $8,435,142 More than a year away -
Police $421,062 June 2021 $30,017
Transportation $5,125,188 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Impact Fee Eligibility
Page | 16
Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of
providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that growth
should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service
provided in the new development area matches what is currently offered elsewhere in the city. As a result, it’s
common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other
funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six
years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if
those fees are not spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest.
CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26
(Note an $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 and the Mayor proposed a new $58 million bond)
The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available
funding for projects over the next six fiscal years. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing
bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for
parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget
Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. 79% of the General Fund transfer
into CIP was needed for these ongoing commitments in FY21.
The projected debt load significantly decreases in FY22 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds
matures (paid off). It was approximately $80 million when the bond was originally issued (before refunding).
This reduces the debt load from 79% to 45% and removes a $5.3 million annual debt payment. The Mayor is
recommending a new sales tax revenue bond totaling $58 million with an estimated annual debt payment of
almost $3.7 million. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded
through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase.
0%
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
1 00%
FY 2020-21 FY 2021 -22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024 -25 FY 2025-26
Allocation of C IP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year
Projection, assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and
continued allocation of 7% of GF revenue to CIP
Debt Service On Bonds Othe r Debt Servic e Other Commitme nts Pay a s You G o Pro jec ts
Page | 17
1.5% for Art Fund (for new art and maintenance of existing artworks)
Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design
Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also
oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to
make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP
funding for art minimum. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%.
The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the 1.5% is allocated to maintenance annually. This
section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public art maintenance
fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art that require
maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation and
maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces. The collection is expected to
continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of
$200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund. Of that amount, up to $40,000 was authorized for a study to
determine the annual funding need for art maintenance and identify specific repairs for artworks.
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (See Attachment 6)
The CFP is a comprehensive 10-year CIP plan. See Attachment 6 for a summary of the Council’s requests and
guidance during the January 2019 briefing from the Administration and discussion. It’s important to note, the
Council expressed interest in identifying a couple measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide
prioritization of project planning.
Regular CIP Project Cost Estimate (See Attachment 8)
Attachment 8 lists cost estimates for various types of projects based on actual costs from recent years. The
document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration. The figures may not be up to
date cost estimates but provide a ballpark figure when considering project costs. The three categories of project
cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. The document was last updated July 2019. Updated cost
estimates will be provided for the Council’s budget deliberations in July and August.
County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding
The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is a new ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to
transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-focused
perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit, accessibility and
ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for
this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g. widening) existing roads; funding active
transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for
maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax
Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax increase is split 0.10% for UTA, 0.10% for cities and
0.05% for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between
this funding source and Class C funds (next section).
Class C Funds (gas tax)
Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local
governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C
funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway Selection Committee
selects specific street segment locations (See next section below). Note that there is overlap in eligible uses
between this funding source and the County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding (previous
section). Per state law, Class C funds may be used for:
1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads
2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutter,
safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the
highway right-of-way
3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund)
4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals
5. Engineering and administration costs
6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects
7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards
8. Matching federal funds
Page | 18
9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another
department or agency
10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities may be
constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis
11. Construction and maintenance of alleys
12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating
13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible)
Roadway Selection Committee
The Roadway Selection Committee determines specific projects for street improvement general purpose
appropriations, e.g., reconstruction or overlay. In recent years this Committee guided use of Class C funds and
revenues from the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction G. O. Bond. The Committee is led by
Engineering and includes representatives of Streets, Transportation, Public Utilities, Public Services, HAND,
Finance, the RDA and Council Staff. Information provided to the committee to consider in their selection
process includes:
Public requests for individual road repair
On-going costs to keep a road safely passable
Existing or planned private development or publicly funded construction activities in a neighborhood
or corridor such as the Sugar House Business District or the 900 South corridor
Safety improvement goals and crash data
Public Utilities’ planned capital projects that would include a variety of underground facilities
replacements, repairs, or upgrades
Private utilities’ existing infrastructure, planned installations or repairs, e.g., fiber, natural gas, power
Neighborhood or transportation master plan considerations
Pavement condition survey data for ideal timing of asphalt overlays to extend useful life of a street
In reviewing the above-mentioned criteria, open deliberations are held between committee members, and roads
are selected for repair by consensus. The number of projects selected is contingent on available funding. Other
City projects and master plans sometimes help in extending funds by combining project funding sources.
CIP Planning Technology Improvements
The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. The City
currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here:
http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017
2. FY 22 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing
3. FY22 CIP Budget Book – Note an electronic version was pending at the time of publishing this staff
report for the June 1 Council meeting
4. Summary Project Spreadsheet for Proposed Sales Tax Bonds Series 2021A and 2021B
5. FY22 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes
6. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
7. Impact Fee “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (April 20, 2021)
8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (July 3, 2019)
9. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years for Potential Funding Recapture
10. 600 North Corridor Transformation Diagrams Draft
11. 600 North Corridor Transformation Preferred Concept, Narrative and Goals Draft
12. Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
13. Qualified Census Tracts for 2021 from U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department
14. ARPA Budget Update Infographic
ACRONYMS
CAN – Community and Neighborhood Development Department
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board
CFP – Capital Facilities Plan
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
ESCO – Energy Service Company
Page | 19
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
G.O. Bond – General Obligation bond
HAND – Housing and Neighborhood Development Division
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
R 17-1
R 17-13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its
commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the
deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement
Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council
review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide
direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal
comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have
evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management
policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current
practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities
across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds,
Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement
Program funds and other similar funding sources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management
policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term
infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City:
Capital Policies
1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:
"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of
buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must
have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring
capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance
expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be
considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of
$50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can
be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software).
Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such
acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project."
2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that
the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year
Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration
as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May.
3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration :
a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital
program period;
b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital
improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and
c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one-
year capital budget.
4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues
for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General
Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General
Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund.
5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at
a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance
and replacement costs.
6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects
that:
a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community;
b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and
c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the
community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost
savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair
consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies ,
establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding .
8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of
approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following
the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time
passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital
projects in a timely manner.
9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be
evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement
Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor ,
and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with
the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above.
10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any
project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1)
year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified.
11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital
improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which
reads as follows:
a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods
have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still
required.
b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula:
1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets of $100,000 or less;
ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets between $100,001 and $250,000;
iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo.
c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees.
d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the
additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval.
e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional
funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening.
However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably
considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration
will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next
regularly scheduled meeting."
12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the
Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement
Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.
It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and
placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at
which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's
General Fund ongoing allocation.
13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which
significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account
balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project
account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond
financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other
restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account.
14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real
property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue
will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a
different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold.
15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to
the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance,
changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP
funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing
expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log.
16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible,
capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the
General Fund budget.
17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the
Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s)
should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the
project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist.
18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects
funding log should identify:
a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's
funding recommendations,
b. The Administration's funding recommendations,
c. The project name and a brief summary of the project,
d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type,
e. The project life expectancy,
f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area,
g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger
project,
h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded
separately,
1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together,
j. Timing for when a project will come on-line,
k. Whether the project implements a master plan,
1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or
sustainability goals,
m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund,
n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions,
o. Communities served,
p. Legal requirements/mandates,
q. Whether public health and safety is affected,
r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan,
s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and
t. Any partner organizations .
Debt Management Policies
1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council
intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are
included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of
opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in
anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs.
2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets
the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis
should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to
finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings.
3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement
whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds.
4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration
analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and
coordinate this analysis with the budget development process.
5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the
Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond
issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's
financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the
Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net
negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating
implications).
6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest
rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance.
7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would
cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the
municipal bond rating industry .
8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit
rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt.
9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration
structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed
project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed
project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.
10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with
long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general
obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of
emergency.
11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating
debt financing options .
12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to
fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments.
13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the
issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the
project.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of
October , 2017.
ATTEST :
HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By 4 = ASL
CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____
Salt Lake City
App ed As To Form
By: ~~~~~~~.P
aysen Oldroyd
Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
1 1.5% for Art
Required by City ordinance and calculated as 1.5% of the General Fund available to spend revenues in the Mayor's
Recommended Budget. Overseen by the Arts Council. Ordinance allows the Administration to use some of the
funding for maintenance of existing artworks and the rest goes to new artworks. The new Art Maintenance Fund
has an available to spend balance of $20,266 and the % for Art Fund has $114,841 available.
$85,586 $34,500 $100,607 $34,500
2 Cost Overrun
Account
Required and governed by the CIP Resolution 29 of 2017. Provides additional funding for projects with expenses
that come in slightly higher than estimated. The available to spend balance of the Cost Overrun Account is
$750,606.
$114,114 $46,000 $114,114 $46,000
3
Odyssey House
Annex Facility
Renovation
100% ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
Will be fully funded using ARPA dollars in the next budget amendment
Odyssey House is seeking funding from Salt Lake City to complete a significant renovation of the Annex building
rented by the agency located at 623 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. Currently, the Annex has a
multitude of structural problems that pose life and safety risks for the residential clients who inhabit the facility at
this time. The roof is deteriorating, and the gutters are becoming unstable. This damage is causing a multitude of
different leaks within the building, harming interior and exterior walls. To fully replace the roof and gutters, it will
cost about $28,000. The building's foundation, primarily in the rear, is beginning to crumble and needs to be
repaired, treated, and braced, which will ultimately cost about $250,000. The roof and foundation must be
restored to complete all other necessary renovations before other workers can be deployed inside the building.
Following the roof and foundation's replacement and repairs, the interior beams, walls, and overall structural
skeleton need to be reinforced and stabilized due to extensive water damage, costing about $33,000. All exterior
walls need to be cleaned, repaired, and repainted, costing about $41,500. Windows and doors within the facility
have to be wholly replaced. Due to structural and foundational problems, all interior doors and windows cannot
shut or lock because their frames are warped and/rotting. To complete an overhaul of the windows and doors, it
will cost about $19,500. Additionally, the electrical and mechanical systems in the building, such as wiring,
hardware, plumbing, etc., will need to be evaluated and repaired or replaced, which will cost about $35,500.
Lastly, exterior site work, such as sidewalk repairs, drainage slope, ADA access, and miscellaneous fees, such as
permits, additional insurance, and project management, will add $42,500 to the total project cost. In total, the
renovation of the Annex will cost about $450,000. However, Odyssey House is looking to build in a contingency of
$50,000 to prepare for any additional work that may appear after beginning construction resulting in an overall
cost of $500,000.
$300,000
4
Street
Improvements
2021/2022
15% ARPA
ELIGIBLE UP TO
$450,000
Requested $3.5 million from Class C; Engineering Project
Deteriorated city streets will be reconstructed or rehabilitated using funding from this program. This will provide
replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary. Where
appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as
determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance.
$2,046,329 $2,046,329
5 Pavement
Conditions Survey
Requested $175,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
Approximately every five years the entire pavement network is surveyed. This condition survey is accomplished by
a third party with state of the art equipment and results in a report summarizing possible options and costs. The
data collected is used by Engineering’s Pavement Management Team to determine the overall street network
condition, provide street rehabilitation and reconstruction recommendations, and prioritize proposed
maintenance activities.
$3,571 $171,429 $3,571 $171,429
6
Public Way
Concrete
2021/2022
Requested $750,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will address displacements in public way concrete through saw-cutting, slab jacking, and removal and
replacement of deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls,
etc.
$75,000 $675,000 $75,000 $675,000
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 1
Exhibit A: Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project AllocationsDRAFT
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
7
Bridge
Preservation
2021/2022
Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
There are 23 bridges in Salt Lake City, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects
these bridges every two years and provides the city with a basic condition report. The city is responsible for
performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in the UDOT report. City Engineering has
prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the objective of extending the functional life of these
structures, and extending the time between major repairs. The requested funds will be used to address needed
repairs and routine maintenance.
$21,429 $278,571 $21,429 $278,571
8
Rail Adjacent
Pavement
Improvements
2021/2022
Requested $70,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This program addresses uneven pavement adjacent to railway crossings. Engineering designs pavement
improvements and contracts the construction.$70,000 $70,000
9
Capital Asset
Replacement
Program
$19.2 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR SIX FACILITIES
PROJECTS
Requested $5,860,449 from General Fund; Facilities Project
The Facilities Division’s Facility Condition Index database categorizes asset renewal projects based on the criticality
of projects starting with Priority 1, Life Safety. Projects in Priority 2 address Structural Integrity, Property Loss, and
Contractual Obligations. To eliminate the $47,733,403 in total deferred capital renewal, Facilities proposes an
annual investment through CIP of $7,000,000. For FY22 CIP funding, Facilities is requesting funding for Projects of
Priority1 and 2 for $5,860,449. (The amount requested is derived from an initial 2017 facility assessment to which
a 3% annual inflationary rate has been applied. It should be noted that the current construction environment is
very heated; with the 10% contingency and 21% Design/Engineering costs Facilities request is $5,860,449.)
$1,252,230 $1,252,230
10 Training Tower
Fire Prop Upgrade
Requested $318,279 from General Fund; Fire Project
The Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade consist of modernizing the existing natural gas fire props within the
Tower. The scope includes upgrading the fuel control station, PLC5 to the new ControlLogix PLC operating system,
and the bedroom, storage, desk, and car fire props.
Fuel control station: Replace existing assembly whose components are currently obsolete. The upgrade will
replace the existing FCS (fuel control station) to “auto” open style FCS which will have the automatically controlled
main gas safety shut off valve and the latest version of the low- and high-pressure switches.
PLC Upgrade – PLC5 to Logix includes upgrade the existing PLC 5 to new ControlLogix PLC:
*New Allen Bradley PLC ControlLogix, input modules, output modules, analog modules, and Ethernet adapter
modules
* Replacement of control room PC’s with the latest PC hardware available at time of delivery
* Microsoft operating system (currently Windows 10)
* KFT Fire Trainer software
* Ethernet to Data Highway Interface for both systems
* Upgrade Outdoor PLC to New Logics PLC.
Fire prop upgrade: KFT's advanced burner design, AquaMesh, produces increased levels of radiant heat, a more
realistic flame signature, lower levels of unburned gases during fire suppression, and more challenging flames that
cannot be swept off the fire mock-up with hose stream application. Water, used to disperse the propane or
natural gas, is not visible through the fireplace mock-up. AquaMesh fires are capable of withstanding repeated
direct hose line stream attacks, without having any significant amount of water dispelled from the burner
assembly within the fire mock-up.
$318,279 $318,279
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 2
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
11 Single Family/Fire
Behavior Prop
Requested $374,864 from General Fund; Fire Project
Drager Phase V Rambler/Fire-Behavior Prop to include:
One (1) story unit comprised of Five (5) 40’ fire training modules
NFPA 1402 $ OSHA-compliant system
Two (2) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chamber with emergency exits as required
Burn baffles
High-heat thermal-insulated wall with door(s), standard windows and doors, one (1) sliding door
Hallway
Vents with pull cable
Cleanout cargo doors
Freight to customer site
On-site installation & set up to include:
Full Project management support from Drager staff
Pre-installation site surveys and in-process review of the build site
Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensure that the fire prop system is installed properly,
safely, and with minimal disruption
Insured and bonded installation and crane service
Train-the Trainer Program
Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors
Complete documentation package on operation and maintenance
$374,864 $374,864
12
Tracy Aviary
Historic Structure
Renovations
Requested $156,078 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Two historical elements at Tracy Aviary in Liberty Park are in need of repair and are the subject of this CIP request.
The Bath House (a.k.a.Custodial Storage Building (CSB)) and the East Gate. The CSB needs a new roof. This will
require removing the solar panels, replacing asphalt shingles and re-installing the solar panels. The East Gate was
identified during our 2019 AZA accreditation inspection as an area of concern due to being an insufficient
perimeter barrier. The solution is to re-align the existing fence and add additional fencing to block a gap. Brick
work to repair damaged areas, signage, and landscaping surrounding the space is also included.
$156,078 $156,078
13
Three Creeks West
Bank Trailway
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
100% ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $490,074 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Reconstruct a half-block of the Jordan River Parkway Trail where it’s eroding into the river at 1300 South and 1000
West.
$484,146 $484,146
14
Three Creeks West
Bank New Park
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
100% ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $150,736 from parks impact fees; Constituent Public Lands Project
This project will create a new multiuse park on 1.4 acres owned by the city at 1050 W 1300 South, along the
Jordan River. Grading and landscaping would need to take place. Park amenities can be determined as the project
moves forward. Pickleball courts have been suggested by the Glendale Community Council.
Note that the Three Creeks Confluence Park on the east side of the Jordan River completed construction and
opened to the public in July 2021.
$150,736 $150,736
15
Sugar House Park
Fabian Lake
Pavilion Remove
and Replace
Requested $183,834 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Scope of work is to remove and replace existing Fabian Lakeside Pavilion. SHPA hired Arch Nexus to review,
analyze and recommend solutions for the deteriorating pavilions, and completed the attached report in December
of 2015. Arch Nexus factored in escalation costs through 2020.
$183,834 $183,834
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 3
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
16 Liberty Park
Basketball Court
Requested $99,680 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
This project is for resurfacing the existing basketball court in the center of the park and the replacement of two
new basketball hoops.$99,680 $99,680
17
Glendale
Waterpark Master
Plan & Landscape
Rehabilitation &
Active Recreation
Component
$10 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR THIS PROJECT
AND
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $3.2 million from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project is Public Lands' highest priority impact fee request. The goal of this project is to provide a new active
recreation amenity at the former Glendale Water Park. This project will build on the results of a City sponsored
community visioning process, planned for 2021, that will determine the program and character for development.
Funds from this request will be allocated for technical drawings and site improvements. Forty years ago, the
Glendale water park was built using Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). LWCF protects funded
sites in perpetuity, to remain active recreation facilities open to the public. Removal of the obsolete water slides
and pools has triggered a three-year clock in which SLC must replace the amenity with another public outdoor,
active recreation facility. It does not have to be water based, but it cannot solely be open fields of grass or natural
area. In the first phase, $3,200,000 will construct a community directed, active recreation amenity on site within
the three-year time limit. The scope of this project will reflect the communities’ priorities and character, resources
allocated and alignment with LWCF requirements. SLC Council and/or designees will be briefed on phase one
project selection prior to design and construction. Full development of the 17-acre site will likely require several
phases and funding cycles.
$3,200,000 $3,200,000
18
A Place for
Everyone: Emerald
Ribbon Master
Plan
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
AND
$440,000 FOR
JORDAN RIVER
PADDLE SHARE
Requested $420,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The Jordan River Emerald Ribbon Master Plan is, fundamentally, a placemaking initiative for the Jordan River
corridor, built on creative, diverse and deep community engagement through four Salt Lake City neighborhoods.
Engagement will seek to identify features, improvements, stories, artwork and institutional connections that are
important to individual neighborhoods and communities along the river.
The planning effort will be led by the SLC Public Lands Division with support from an experienced consulting firm,
and extensive involvement of community partner organizations imbedded in the neighborhoods. This approach
will build on the connections made with University Neighborhood Partners to further this collaborative
relationship in the west side communities, and will ensure that creative and diverse engagement tactics produce
public feedback that captures the voices and opinions of groups and community members that have been
traditionally underrepresented.
Placemaking engagement activities will be broken into four distinct but complimentary neighborhood efforts:
Glendale (Hwy 201 to 900 South), Poplar Grove (900 South to North Temple), Fairpark/Jordan Meadows (North
Temple to 700 North), and Rose Park/Westpointe (700 North to I-215). Each engagement effort will draw on
existing Public Land assets along and nearby the river corridor, as well as the direction established by the Blueprint
Jordan River 2.0, the Westside Master Plan, 9Line Master Plan, Northwest Master Plan, North Temple Boulevard
Plan, Rose Park Small Area Plan, Northpointe Small Area Plan, Jordan River Flood Control, Habitat and Green
Infrastructure Plan, the Reimagine Nature SLC Public Lands Master Plan, and other relevant documents. The final
Master Plan will include block-by-block improvement components along with recommended phasing and high-
level cost estimates for implementation that will guide subsequent allocation of CIP and Impact Fee resources,
investments in programming, and strategic partnerships.
$416,667 $416,667
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 4
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
19
Downtown Green
Loop
Implementation:
Design for 200 East
linear Park
PARTIALLY ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $610,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
Several streets along the Downtown Plan's visionary Green Loop Regional Park project are already under
consideration by the Transportation Division for corridor-wide changes, including improvements for active
transportation. This request from the Public Lands Division would fund the collaborative visioning, public
engagement, and conceptual design of the nontransportation elements of the Green Loop. The design of public
green space, park elements, and stormwater rain gardens / bio-swales will be proposed within the 132' public
way, facilitated by a significant reallocation of space from pavement to park.
Based on the Transportation Division's current and pending work on 200 East, it is anticipated that this funding will
go primarily to 200 East, with some lesser attention to other corridors along the loop. The result of this phase of
the project will be public awareness, interest and excitement about this regionally-significant project; a conceptual
and preliminary design; a construction cost estimate suitable for seeking construction funds; and strategies for
short and long term maintenance approaches and costs. Specific tasks associated with this scope of work include:
• Public engagement for conceptual design and design development of the 200 East leg Green Loop corridor
• Conceptual design for the green space component of the 200 East Corridor/ Segment of the Green Loop.
• Analysis of site opportunities and constraints with special attention to underground utilities and infrastructure
that may impact above ground improvements.
• Design development of the 200 East green space development and amenities. To include full construction cost
estimates with short and long term maintenance cost estimates.
$610,000 $610,000
20
Liberty Park
Cultural Landscape
Report and Master
Plan
Requested $475,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Liberty Park is Salt Lake City’s most iconic – and most popular – park space, with well over one million visitors each
year. The features that draw visitors to Liberty Park – this historic features and mature trees that give Liberty Park
its unique atmosphere – are in a state of accelerating deterioration. The formal tree plantings framing the central
walkway and perimeter of the park are suffering tree loss due to old age and a planting plan to maintain historic
character is desperately needed. The project has three integral components:
1. A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) is the principal document based on standards established by the National
Park Services. The report documents the history and physical changes of the site, determines periods of historic
significance and develops treatment recommendations for historic features and plantings. The report will build on
previous studies such as the 19XX Historic American Landscape Survey and look to including information on
underrepresented communities for this site. A CLR will include guidance for capital improvements, deferred
maintence projects and maintence.
2. The Liberty Park Master Plan will establish a vision and actionable plan that builds on the CLR recommendations
and provide an orderly framework for consistent planning, development and administration of the park for the
next twenty years. The plan deliverable will include concept level designs and renderings; a prioritized list of
capital improvements with high-level cost estimates; and policy direction for decision makers. The plan will go
though a formal adoption process.
3. This project will also include a study of the Liberty Park Greenhouse adaptive reuse for plant production, visitor
access, sustainability and potential revenue generation. The study will look at significantly expanding capacity for
growth of the City’s rare and native plant propagation program, allowing biodiversity enhancements at more parks
and natural areas citywide.
$354,167 $354,167
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 5
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
21
Historic Structure
Renovation &
Activation at Allen
Park
$1.3 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR THIS PROJECT
Requested $420,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
• Structural and occupancy analysis of the historic structures
• Development of architectural drawings and bid-ready cost estimates for baseline structural, safety and
functional improvements for eleven (11) structures, sufficient to utilize them as twenty-three (23) separate art
studio spaces without plumbing, and the historically-sensitive adaptation of one (1) structure to serve as a
restroom/supplies washroom.
• Development of preliminary architectural plans, renderings and high-level cost analysis for the historic
reconstruction of the George Allen Home to serve as a community education space for art classes and workshops,
and historic reconstruction of the adjoining “Rooster House” duplex to serve as a small café space with outdoor
dining.
• Development of construction documents and cost estimates for demolition of all aging/leaking septic systems
buried on property, and construction of a sewer connection from the adapted restroom structure to the sewer
connection on 1300 East.
• Development of construction documents and cost estimates for replacement of the two broken water meters
that serve the property, water connections to service the adapted restroom structure, fire suppression systems in
the art studios, a fire hydrant on the east side of the property, underground drip irrigation to support trees
throughout the property, and spray irrigation to support select flowerbeds and turf areas, and a replumbed
connection to the decorative fountains.
• Construction documents and cost estimates for repair and stabilization of exterior art pieces on the Allen
Property at risk of collapse or severe deterioration, reconstruction of the lighting along Allen Park Drive,
adaptation of the north and south driveways to include public and ADA accessible parking for Allen Park, resurface
the degraded Allen Park Drive into an ADA-accessible, permeable surface pathway.
• High-level plan drawings and preliminary cost estimates for pedestrian stairway connections to 1400 East and
1500 East.
$420,000 $420,000
22
Replace Poplar
Grove Tennis with
new Sportcourt
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
100% ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $440,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Poplar Grove Park is currently underutilized and does not have recreation amenities in demand by the community.
This project will remove two failing tennis courts, constructed over forty years ago, and construct either two new
tennis courts or six new pickleball courts in the existing footprint. A brief community survey will be conducted to
determine neighborhood priority. Should pickleball courts be selected, six courts would make the site ideal for
tournament play. There is an existing restroom that was recently updated, and a recently constructed concessions
stand, currently underutilized, that would provide desired support amenities for tournaments. The project
includes:
• Engagement with the community on project preference
• Full demolition of the existing tennis courts and associated pavement
• Development of site design and technical drawings for bidding and construction
• Construction of post-tension court facility
• Installation of associated perimeter fences, gates, nets, and benches
• Replacement of related perimeter sidewalks
• Installation of waterwise use plantings and irrigation in associated landscape areas
$433,333 $433,333
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 6
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
23
SLC Foothills
Trailhead
Development
$5 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $1,304,682 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project is part of a phased development of trailheads within Salt Lake City Foothills. The Foothill Trails Master
Plan adopted by Council in early 2020 identified key trailhead locations and recommended improvements to
better accommodate the growing trail network.
Phase 1, Conceptual Design: This phase was funded during FY19 and is currently underway. The SLC Public Lands
team has been working with Alta Planning Consulting to develop concept designs for five key trailhead locations
including: Emigration Canyon, Popperton Park, Bonneville Boulevard, Morris Mountain (I-Street) and Victory Road.
Concepts are attached.
Following completion of the conceptual design process and cost estimates, SLC Public Lands is now requesting
funding to implement two of the five trailhead improvement projects. Due to substantial costs associated with all
five locations the remaining locations will be included in FY23
Phase II, construction will implement trailhead improvements at both Bonneville Boulevard and Emigration
Canyon.
Implementation of key trailhead improvements is a fundamental component for sustainability, accessibility, and
functionality of the 100+ mile recreational trail system recommended by the SLC Foothills Trail System Plan and
these two locations will provide a good start to implementation of the master plan recommendations.
If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance
contingency on all foothill trails funding.
$1,304,682 $1,304,682
24
SLC Foothills Land
Acquisitions
$5 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $425,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
The project scope is limited to the acquisition of property rights for six parcels of undeveloped natural open space
in the north and central Foothills Natural Area, totaling approximately 275 acres, which will allow SLC to
consolidate ownership interest in the subject parcels, putting the City in a position to protect the parcels from
future development, and to guide property management for habitat protection, restoration, and recreational
access.
For three parcels, the proposed acquisitions would give SLC 100% property ownership; for two parcels, the
proposed acquisitions would move SLC from a minority ownership interest to a majority property ownership
interest; an in one case, would move SLC from a slight majority interest to a 90% interest. Increasing the fractional
ownership interest in these parcels substantially improves the City's ability to protect and manage them for
foothill protection, habitat restoration and nonmotorized recreational use.
If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance
contingency on all foothill trails funding. The Council could request a closed session briefing from the
Administration about the proposed property purchases.
$425,000 $425,000
25
Jordan Park
Pedestrian
Pathways
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
AND
$1.2 MILLION FOR
PUBLIC LANDS
SIGNAGE
100% ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $510,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project will design and construct more than 3000 linear feet of new looped pathways in Jordan Park. New trail
segments will connect to existing sidewalks in order to create new desired pedestrian connections and a looped
network around the multi-use fields. This project builds on a previous request, approved in 2019 for new multi-
use trails in Jordan Park. This funding will be used to develop construction drawings for the pathways and
construction of the new pathways. Site furnishings, wayfinding and orientation signage will also be installed.
$510,000 $510,000
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 7
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
26
RAC Playground
with Shade Sails
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $450,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
Cost Estimates
$300,000- Playground materials and construction
$150,000- Design, engineering and contingency
This project will add a new playground at the Regional Athletic Complex. The RAC has been open for 5 years and
currently doesn’t have any amenities for children to use while visiting the complex.
The full scope of this project includes:
• Design for a new playground for ages 5-12
• Development of technical drawings
• Grading and surfacing preparations
• Playground Construction
• Walkway and fencing
Note that since FY17, the Council approved $2,421,518 for six RAC capital improvement projects
$180,032 $180,032
27
700 South
Westside Road
Configuration
Requested $514,450 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
A particular area of concern is the intersection of 700 S and 1000 W. 10th west (a massively wide road) intersects
with 700 S (another, even more massively wide road). I propose that 700 S be reconfigured to include a traffic
circle with a pocket park in the center, and include at least two, perhaps 3 medians along 700 South. I picture
these medians planted with large, native trees and plants. I picture clearly defined traffic lanes for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and cars, including clearly marked, perhaps even raised cross walks. I picture a quality, speed controlling
traffic circle with some low maintenance vegetation, benches, maybe even a simple playground. This vision
benefits the community in more ways than we could count. Improving roads, reducing the heat island effect by
the massive asphalt slabs, beautifying our surroundings, creating community gathering places, mitigating crime,
reducing vehicle speeds, and so much more. I have discussed this concern with neighbors, the poplar grove
community council, and had a brief conversation with Councilman Andrew Johnston about my concerns and our
ideas for reconfiguration, and he suggested I submit a CIP grant, which brings me here today. I hope the city will
consider the benefit that this kind of project will offer to our community.
Cost – provided by SLC Engineering
Traffic Circle Construction
Crosswalk Construction
2-3 Planted Medians
Clearly defined traffic lines.
Useful Life – >10 years
Salt Lake City Owned Asset – Roads and sidewalks are all public Salt Lake City Owned Assets
$223,450 $291,000 $223,450 $291,000
28
Highland High
Crosswalk
Enhancements
Requested $85,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The scope of work will include upgrading the crossing to include Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) as well
as enhancements to shorten the crosswalk and make it safer (bulbouts on the east and west side of the
intersection and a raised median)
$85,000 $85,000
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 8
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
29
200 South Transit
Complete Street
Supplement
15% ARPA
ELIGIBLE UP TO
$1.8 MILLION OF
TOTAL PROJECT
COST
Requested $284,691 from transportation impact fees, $415,800 from Quartercent for transportation and
$2,561,409 from Funding Our Future; Transportation Project
As part of the Funding Our Future program, Salt Lake City will reconstruct 200 South from 400 West to 900 East
beginning in 2022. The current budget allocated to this project is $12,000,000 inclusive of construction and
professional design fees. The Transportation Division is requesting $3,261,900 to supplement the reconstruction
funds that reflects the recommendations from the 200 South Transit Corridor, Complete Street, and Downtown
Transit Hub Study. The preliminary design includes:
• Side-running Business Access and Transit (BAT) priority lanes, which operate as dedicated bus lanes but still
provide access to curbside uses and can be used in mixed traffic conditions.
• In-street bus stop islands will allow buses to stay in the driving lane, which reduces bus travel time and
minimizes conflicts that occur when weaving to curbside bus stops.
• Additional transit access and walkability elements, including mid-block crosswalk upgrades, landscaping,
sidewalk repair, human-scale lighting, traffic signal replacements (3), and bicycle lanes.
The low-end cost estimate for the preliminary design is approximately $15,500,000; the majority of the expense is
going to pavement robust enough handle the amount of bus activity expected on the corridor. Without
supplementary funds the budget shortfall will require removing many of the elements that make this a
transformative multi-modal project. It is expected that the project will need to be implemented in phases,
specifically the East Downtown Transit Hub envisioned in the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan and WFRC Regional
Transportation Plan. However, there are many elements that are important to build in the initial construction
phase that are structural to the road reconstruction project (e.g. curb extensions that affect flow lines and
drainage inlets); these are the priority elements the supplemental funds will be directed towards.
$37,422 $415,800 $37,422 $415,800
30 900 South 9Line RR
Crossing
Requested $28,000 from transportation impact fees and $172,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
The 2018 9-Line Trail Extension Study is the basis for recent 9-Line Trail projects’ design and budgeting
approaches. It recommends two very different design options near Interstate 15 and Union Pacific’s (UPRR) and
the Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) rails. The more expensive, longer-term option is to grade-separate either just
the trail or both the trail and the roadway. The easier, less expensive, and shorter-term option is an improved at-
grade (or ground-level) crossing of the rails and routing the trail under the interstate. The latter is the focus of this
application. More information about the overall project’s timeline (2021-2023), approach, benefits, and robust
past engagement can be found at www.900SouthSLC.com. This funding request seeks additional monies that
would be used to:
• Fund an increase in the coordination and design budgets for the City’s contracted design and engineering
consultants (including multiple field and coordination meetings with UPRR, UTA, and the Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT); research; and, more in-depth design), around $10,000
• Fund the UPRR consultant’s (RailPros) design review fees, typically up to $20,000.
• Construct three new railroad panels south of the existing panels, which are necessary to accommodate a 9-Line
Trail crossing capable of serving people walking and bicycling perpendicular to the rail corridor, typically around
$30,000 for all three.
• Construct additional improvements and/or new support infrastructure at the at-grade crossing per recent
experience with standard UPRR and UDOT guidance (e.g., back flashers, blankout signs, signage, pavement
markings, detectable warning surfaces and trail delineation, audible devices, fencing, swing arms, gates), typically
around $120,000.
• Fund UPRR and UTA-required training, traffic control, permitting, and miscellaneous other costs related to
construction, typically around $10,000.
• Engineering Division fees, typically about 10% (estimated at $10,000)
$28,000 $172,000 $28,000 $172,000
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 9
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
31 Trails Maintenance
Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for Transportation; Transportation Project
This funding request from 4th Quarter of a Cent Sales Tax for Transportation is requested to be moved from the
capital list into the annual operating budget for the Public Lands Division. Maintenance is an eligible expense of
the state-authorizing legislation for this fund. These funds will be used to fund city staff, equipment and material
to maintain new and recently constructed trails including portions of the 9-Line, McClelland Trail, and the Jordan
River Trail, and other urban trail segments that potentially come online during the course of the fiscal year. The
maintenance of these trails are necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and also so they can be used
year round.
$200,000 $200,000
32 Local Link
Construction
Requested $50,000 from transportation impact fees and $450,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
The Local Link Circulation Study (adoption pending, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar
House Circulation Plan, continues the 2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit
in Sugar House.
This funding request is supplemental construction dollars to implement some of the recommendations of the
Local Link circulation study in the Sugar House area. Many Sugar House streets are planned to be reconstructed as
part of the Funding our Future Streets Bond, which included some Complete Streets funding. However, these
budgets had only limited funding for more extensive Complete Streets elements such as would reconfigure curbs
or intersections. This funding will allow the City to build higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and
biking in this key area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These
roadways include Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant
allocated through the Wasatch Front Regional Council.
These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better walking and biking connections between
Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction of bike facilities around Sugar House
Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House (modifying turn movements, shortening
crossing distances).
$50,000 $450,000 $50,000 $450,000
33 Corridor
Transformations
Requested $75,604 from transportation impact fees and $780,438 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
This programmatic request will fund the design and construction of significant infrastructure additions to corridors
NOT currently planned for reconstruction -- to include corridor-based complete streets changes to signing, striping
and wayfinding. corridor-long consideration and placement of bus stops with shelters, benches, trash cans, and
other amenities; improved bikeways; reconfigured intersections for improved pedestrian and bicycle safety in the
context of a corridor study; and consideration of business access / on-street parking. Possible corridors include
600/700 North, 2100 South, and corridors on the Downtown Green Loop.
$25,398 $282,200 $25,398 $282,200
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 10
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
34 Area Studies
Requested $14,000 from transportation impact fees and $201,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
These funds will be used to study and provide recommendations for streets and circulation in the rapidly-
developing Granary area, including the incorporation of bike, pedestrian and rail transit in the area, as well as an
understanding of how the existing streets should be improved. The cost of this study is estimated at $120,000, and
the City has applied for $111,000 in Transportation and Land Use Connection funding. The study will be
complemented by a study work being conducted by UTA in the area.
These funds will also be used to develop design recommendations for selected streets in the Sugar House area,
following on the more general guidance provided by the Local Link Circulation Study. This study (adoption process
anticipated, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar House Circulation Plan, continues the
2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit in Sugar House. The purpose of this
funding would be to allow us to design higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and biking in this key
area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These roadways include
Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant allocated through
the Wasatch Front Regional Council. These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better
walking and biking connections between Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction
of bike facilities around Sugar House Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House
(modifying turn movements, shortening crossing distances).
$14,000 $201,000 $0 $201,000
35 400 South Viaduct
Trail
Requested $310,000 from General Fund, $90,000 from transportation impact fees and $500,000 from Quartercent
for transportation; Transportation Project
This project will add a low-profile, concrete barricade along with striping changes to create a multi-use trail on the
south side of the 400 South Viaduct, connecting the Poplar Grove Neighborhood with Downtown Salt Lake City for
those walking or bicycling. Construction includes changes to sidewalks and bike / pedestrian ramps, striping
removal and replacement, and minor construction to relocate medians. The multi-use trail will tie into existing
sidewalks on the east and west, and connect to existing and planned bike lanes.
$310,000 $90,000 $500,000 $310,000 $90,000 $500,000
36 Neighborhood
Byways
Requested $104,500 from transportation impact fees and $940,500 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
These funds will be used for design and construction of four neighborhood byways, as well as to create a
neighborhood byway conceptual design and guidance document to be used as reference material in the
development of future neighborhood byways. This will make future neighborhood byway development more
streamlined and efficient, and is anticipated to cost $100,000.
Two neighborhood byways -- 800 East Phase 1 ($275,000) and Poplar Grove Phase 2 ($600,000) -- will receive
construction dollars, while the additional two byways -- Sugar House to the U and Rose Park West -- will enter
community collaboration leading to conceptual designs ($35,000 per byway).
$104,500 $940,500 $104,500 $940,500
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 11
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
37
900 South Signal
Improvements
15% ARPA
ELIGIBLE UP TO
$375,000 OF
TOTAL PROJECT
COST
Requested $430,000 from General Fund and $70,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
The 2021-2023 900 South Reconstruction project runs from 900 West to Lincoln Street (945 East). From 700 East
to 200 West, the proposed design includes reducing the roadway width and cross section from four lanes to three,
improving safety and reducing speeds. The reduction in width also provides space for a separated path (the 9-Line
Trail), from 700 West to Lincoln Street (945 East) on the south side of 900 South. The narrowing and other project
elements will largely be achieved by moving the southern curb line to the north. These improvements are fully
funded and are currently in design, and construction will begin in 2021. For more about timeline, benefits, and the
robust past engagement for this project, visit www.900SouthSLC.com.
The new street design requires updated signal design and some additional infrastructure at most intersections
along the corridor. The layout of the proposed improvements has been designed to reduce the number of signal
poles required to be moved to keep project costs as low as possible.
1. West-facing signal mast arms on the south side of the corridor would generally be lengthened, or the entire
pole and mast arm would be relocated farther north.
2. East-facing signal mast arms on the north side may be shortened.
3. All signal heads would be adjusted to line up with the new lane configuration.
4. The new street design and the introduction of the trail on the south side require relocating or adding new or
relocated pedestrian push buttons to coincide with the new curb ramp locations.
5. The existing signal detection on cross streets (for northbound and southbound traffic) would also be upgraded
with radar or camera sensors at the 200 East, 300 East, 400 East, and 500 East intersections, the only four
intersections where such state-of-the-practice detection technology does not currently exist.
$96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500 $96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500
38 Urban Trails
Requested $6,500 from transportation impact fees and $1,038,500 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
This programmatic funding application is for a suite of projects that represent collaborations between
Transportation Division and the Trails & Natural Lands Division of Public Lands. These funds will enable conceptual
development, design, and construction of selected urban trails, including:
• design of the Folsom Trail west of 1000 West
• design of the Grit & Gravel Trail (Beck St.) providing a key connection to Davis County
• design of the Parley's Trail in Sugar House following on the Local Link Circulation Plan
• design and initial quick-build implementation of portions of 200 East and/or other streets
included in the Green Loop linear park recommended in the Downtown Master Plan. Quick-build designs will be
linked to the project’s public engagement process and may be temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent.
• initial conceptual design of potential west side trails such as Stegner Trail along CWA drain
• neighborhood connections to the Jordan River Trail
• rehabilitation of badly deteriorated sections of the Jordan River Trail
$6,500 $1,038,500 $6,500 $1,038,500
39 Multimodal Street
Maintenance
Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project
This project provides funding to hire contractors for specialized maintenance of infrastructure for which current in-
house staff doesn’t have the equipment or staff to accomplish. Examples include enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes,
bike racks, colored pavement including downtown green bike lanes, bus shelters, enhanced medians: Snow
plowing, striping, signals, signage, delineators, etc.
$200,000 $200,000
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 12
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
40
Transportation
Safety
Improvements
Requested $450,000 from General Fund and $50,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
Traffic safety projects include the installation of warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control
devices and minor reconfiguration of an intersection or roadway to address safety issues. Salt Lake City's program
places a strong emphasis on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, particularly in support of access to and from transit.
This funding will further the City’s on-going effort to reduce injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists citywide and to
improve community health and livability by promoting walking and bicycling. This funding will be used for the
installation of safety improvements throughout the city as described in the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan, and
also to address ongoing needs as safety studies are completed.
Crossing improvements such as HAWKs or TOUCANs, flashing warning lights at crosswalks or intersections, refuge
islands, bulb-outs, improved signalized crossings and new or improved pavement markings are examples of the
safety devices that are installed with this funding. Projects are identified by using data to analyze crash history,
roadway configuration and characteristics, and with citizen input. Identified projects to improve traffic safety
involve conditions that pose a higher relative risk of injury to those traveling within SLC and are therefore deemed
a high priority for implementation.
$44,400 $400,000 $44,400 $400,000
41
1700 South
Corridor
Transformation
Requested $326,835 from General Fund and $36,315 transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
Transformation of 1700 South to provide improved neighborhood connections to Glendale Park, 1700 River Park,
support a possible new regional park replacing the defunct water park, and to create an improved east-west
walking and bicycling corridor at the approximate north-south midpoint between the 9-Line Trail and the Parley’s
Trail. Improvements will also include street crossings to connect the parks on the north (1700 South River Park)
and south (Glendale Water Park and Glendale Park) sides of the street. Funds to be used for design, public
engagement, and construction of curb changes to improve ped/bike safety and street tree planting sites, semi-
permanent quick build linear elements, striping changes, and signage.
$317,792 $35,300 $317,792 $35,300
42 Kensington Byway
Ballpark
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The CDCIP Advisory Board did not recommend funding this project.
The Ballpark Community Council and Liberty Wells Community Council are requesting CIP funds for development
of a neighborhood byway on Kensington Avenue as suggested in the Utah Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
(December 2015).
“Improvements that make a street a neighborhood byway include bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements
(for example, signals, crosswalks, curb extensions (aka bulb-outs), curb ramps, signage, street markings, and other
traffic calming techniques), wayfinding signage, and connectivity enhancements to existing bicycle and pedestrian
routes.” (source: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/neighborhood-byways/ )
Note the CDCIP Board did not recommend funding this project.
$500,000 $500,000
43 3000 South
Sidewalk and Curb
Requested $449,315 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
Install curb and gutter and adjacent sidewalk and asphalt tie in on the north side of 3000 South
from Highland Drive to 1500 East and an asphalt overlay over the entire street. Installation will
require the removal of trees and landscaping and adjustment of drive approaches and retaining walls.
44 Logan Ave
Reconstruction
Requested $1,405,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will reconstruct the deteriorated streets affected following the Public Utilities storm drain project. This
will provide replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary.
Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as
determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 13
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
45
Bridge
Replacement (200
South over Jordan
River)
Requested $3.5 million from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will include the complete removal and replacement of the existing vehicle bridge for 200 South over
the Jordan River. Design will consider complete streets features, accommodations for the adjacent Jordan River
Trail, and the historic nature of the adjacent Fisher Mansion, and potential art components incorporated into or
around the new bridge.
46
Bridge
Rehabilitation (400
South and 650
North over Jordan
River)
PARTIALLY ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $3 million from General Fund; Engineering Project
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the 400 South and 650 North vehicle bridges over the Jordan River. A
bridge inspection performed by UDOT gave these bridges a Health Index score of 48.55 and 46.58, respectively,
out of 100.
Combining the two bridges into one project will result in economies of scale since the rehabilitation work for both
bridges will be similar. The existing asphalt surface will be removed and the underlying deck will be treated for
cracking and delaminated concrete. The deck will receive a waterproofing membrane, a new asphalt overlay, and
deck drains to remove storm water from the deck. The under surface of the bridge will be treated for cracking and
delaminated concrete on the deck, girders, pier caps, and abutments. The steel piles supporting the piers exhibit
heavier than typical corrosion. The piles will be dewatered and treated for corrosion. The existing damaged
parapet wall will be removed and rebuilt which will widen the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian access route.
Additionally, aesthetic enhancements will be incorporated including replacing the chain link fence and railings
mounted on the outside of the sidewalk with decorative railings. A consulting firm with specialized experience will
be used for this project.
47 Wingpointe Levee
Design
Requested $800,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
The cost estimate includes conceptual design, final design, and geotechnical investigations performed by
Engineering consultants. Current levee conditions will be evaluated, required improvements identified, and
modifications recommended. Typical sections of levee reconstruction determined in order to develop
construction cost estimates and required plans and documents for permitting, then construction. This design
effort will inform future funding construction requests to bring the levee into compliance.
48 Three Creeks West
Bank Roadways
Requested $1,158,422 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
This project calls for reconstructing a little over a block of 1300 South and 1/3 of a block of 1000 West and
installing storm sewers.
49 Delong Salt
Storage
Requested $1,504,427 from General Fund; Facilities Project
This salt storage building would cover 4000 tons of salt during winter months and seasonal remnants of salt the
rest of the year. The salt will be protected from the elements which reduces waste and allows for an overall, more
efficient snow removal process. See attached estimate.
50 Steam Bay
Requested $363,495 from General Fund; Facilities Project
When the new Streets and Fleet facility was built in 2010, one equipment steam bay was installed to clean asphalt
and other heavy equipment. The bay is designed to remove asphalt products, separate oil from water runoff, and
capture the runoff to meet storm water pollution prevention requirements. A single Streets crew could alternate
equipment cleaning and repair, but with the addition of the second crew, all equipment is running simultaneously,
and the steam bay’s capacity has been exceeded to that point of jeopardizing equipment cleaning and the creating
a storm water pollution risk. Additionally, the current pump system is at the end of its expected lifespan. Funds
will go toward a larger, more robust, and better designed system. This additional steam bay will be 22X45 with 4
foot pony walls and tie in to the upgraded pumping system.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 14
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
51 Mixed-Use Three
Story Prop
Requested $815,895 from General Fund; Fire Project
Drager Phase V Training Gallery (Mixed-use fire prop) to include:
Three (3) story unit with roof top deck/fourth floor comprised of seven (7) 40’ and one (1) 20’ training modules
Three (3) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chambers with emergency exits (as required)
Two (2) clean out decks for burn chambers
Burn room baffles
Exterior scissor staircase from the ground level to the fourth story/roof with interior access on each floor
Exterior stairs to single container roof
Interior stairs connecting first to second and second to third stories
Fall protection railings around all roofs of containers
Rappelling anchor on top of fourth story/roof
Two bailout windows
Vent/enter/search windows
Eleven (11) exterior doors
Two (2) interior doors
Emergency fire escape stairs
Four (4) training deck containers
On-site installation & set up to include: Full project management support from Drager staff, Pre-installation site
surveys and in-process review of the build site, Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensures
that the fire prop system is installed properly, safely, and with minimal disruption, Insured and bonded installation
and crane service, Train-the Trainer Program
Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors Complete documentation package on
operation and maintenance
52 Training Ground
Site Improvements
Requested $694,785 from General Fund; Fire Project
The fire training ground site improvement includes the excavation and construction of paved areas surrounding
fire training props to allow access for firefighters and fire vehicles as they train. Ideally this training ground would
simulate a small cross section of the structures that are in Salt Lake City and the site improvement would resemble
streets and access points like what is in the city. Currently there is approximately 45,000 square feet of
underutilized training ground.
Key components of this project include:
Training ground site design
Site excavation
Drainage and retention system
Site back fill and compaction
Various paved access roads
Reinforced concrete pads for vehicle extrication training
Technical and confined rescue training props
Curb and gutter along Wallace St.
Perimeter landscaping and fencing
53 Sunnyside Park
Sidewalk
Requested $72,740 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Construct sidewalk on south side of Valdez Dr. from east gate of Dept. of Veterans Affairs to intersecting sidewalk
inside Sunnyside Park. See map. Sidewalk is approximately 365-ft long by 4-ft wide. Federal funding was explored
but we are prohibited from applying those funds to non-federal property. Costs could include wider surface or
other improvements to meet the minimum spending requirement.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 15
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
54
Winner on
Wasatch Dee Glen
Tennis Court
Construction
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
A critically important construction project replacing four old asphalt tennis courts at Dee Glen (Wasatch Hills
Tennis Center/formerly Coach Mike's Tennis Academy) inside the current bubble. These new courts would be post-
tension concrete courts (long-lasting compared to asphalt) would be preparatory to a new privately funded year-
round tennis air dome by the Coach Mike's Friends of Public Tennis Foundation (a 501 c3 non-profit whose
mission is to assist the main funding source, Salt Lake City, in supporting Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis
Centers). Note that #s 54, 55 and 56 are in order of the constituent's preferences.
$400,000
55
Lighting Upgrade
at Liberty Park
Tennis Center
Requested $202,100 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
LED Energy Efficient Lighting Upgrade of 120 outdated metal halide light fixtures at Liberty Park Tennis Center.
Note that #s 54, 55 and 56 are in order of the constituent's preferences.
56
Liberty Park &
Wasatch Hills
Tennis Court
Resurfacing
Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
26 Tennis Courts resurfacing at Liberty park tennis center and wasatch hills tennis center. Note that #s 54, 55 and
56 are in order of the constituent's preferences.
57
Harrison Ave and
700 E Community
Garden
Requested $103,500 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
This community garden would be developed through the Green City Growers Program, a partnership between
Wasatch Community Gardens (WCG) and Salt Lake City’s Parks and Public Lands Division to establish community
gardens on Cityowned and managed land with the primary goals to increase access to fresh, local produce and
reduce barriers to urban food production.
The scope of work to develop a new community garden includes working with community members for 12 to 18
months to develop the interest, support, and design of the project. WCG will work to build the community
support. Our organization will work with stakeholders to create a coalition of gardeners, garden leaders,
volunteers and donors to raise any remaining funds to complete the garden design process, provide the materials
for planting boxes (including ADA accessible raised beds), soil, amendments, and irrigation. WCG will enlist and
provide oversight of volunteer in-kind labor, and oversee services that are contracted out.
The cost estimate of $103,500 is based upon three recent community garden starts in this program; the 9-Line
Community Garden, the Gateway Community Garden, and the Richmond Park Community Garden. The scope of
work includes; soil testing for contaminants to help guide the bed design, landscape design, site demolition and
preparation, water main hook up, fencing, ADA beds and pathways, garden beds, a drip irrigation system, soil,
amendments, and mulch for pathways, tools and supplies, a shade and gathering structure, and signage, benches,
and common area plantings.
$103,500
58
1300 South
Camping Resisitant
Landscaping
Requested $100,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
The Ballpark Community Council is requesting CIP funds for landscaping improvements for the park strips on 1300
South and the areas immediately surrounding Horizonte. Rather than the lawns and grass that currently exist on
these park strips, we’re asking the City to invest in re-planting these areas with new low- to no-water options such
as combinations of trees with xeriscaping and/or rockscapes. These new park strip designs would have the dual
effect of assisting the City with its goal of reducing nonagricultural use of water and would also serve as a loiter
and camping-resistant landscapes.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 16
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
59 Wingate Walkway
Requested $286,750 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
• This budget includes removal and transplanting of trees as requested by constituents. This is quite expensive at
estimated $5000 per tree, and would include using a crane, as well as contracted extra care for 2 years by a
landscaping company to get the trees reestablished. This is not something that can be done in-house. Tree
removal is much less expensive, at $500 per tree. This would mean the removal of 15 mature trees for this project,
but at a construction cost savings of $67,500.
• This budget assumes that the power pole at the eastern end of the corridor, and the power drop to the traffic
signal, will not be relocated. If those do need to be relocated, an additional approximate $30,000 would be added
to the project construction costs, along with associated design and engineering fees. There may also be ROW
acquisition costs to site the pole and its guy-wires.
• This budget does not include 36 parking headers that would need to be purchased by Wingate Condo
Association and placed on Wingate property at an estimated cost of $2,500-3,000 (for all 36). The parking headers
would be needed to protect the fence from regularly being hit and damaged by Wingate residents parking. It is
suggested that this be placed into legal agreement as part of the easement, and that the Condo Association be
responsible for any damage to the fence caused by not having the parking headers in place.
• A less expensive fence could be installed to save costs. This budget is for wrought iron fencing at $48 per linear
foot. Chain link would be half or less of that cost.
• This project has been budgeted as a 10' multi-use path, similar to the photos the constituents included. This also
recongizes the recommended use as both bicycle and pedestrian facility, as referenced in the City's Pedestrian &
Bicycle Master Plan. To save costs, the path could be constructed as a sidewalk, at 6' wide instead of 10'. The
thickness may be able to be reduced to sidewalk standard at 4" thick. However, further discussion should be had
with SLC Police Department about their preferred approach to emergency access.
$286,750
60 1200 East Median
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
The curbing and irrigation systems for these medians has fallen into serious disrepair. This project seeks to install
new curbing around each island to prevent cars from driving across the turf and will allow the soil to be raised to
match the grade of the top of the root ball of the existing trees, replace the irrigations system and a significant
amount of trees supplementing the urban forest that remains. The tree planting portion of the project is in
support of the “Trillion Tree Campaign” in an effort to aid in enhancing Salt Lake City’s air quality. The cost
estimate is $500,000 to include design, engineering fees, contingency and construction.
61
Parleys Historic
Nature Park
Structure
Preservation
Requested $765,325 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The proposed CIP project will fund the following work in Parleys Historic Nature Park (PHNP):
1. identify key historic structures and artifacts, assess preservation needs, and create detailed
rehabilitation/protection recommendations for each;
2. develop fully-engineered designs and construction cost estimates for historic structural rehabilitation;
3. if feasible, develop and secure a conservation easement to protect irreplaceable historic and natural features,
per the recommendations of the 2011 PHNP Management Plan.
4. if feasible within project budget, develop a detailed signage & interpretive materials plan to improve public
awareness/appreciation of historic features & structures, and construct/install the recommended interpretive
signage.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 17
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
62
Enhancement of
the Cemetery for
Visitor Research
and Knowledge
$1.2 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR PUBLIC LANDS
SIGNAGE
Requested $790,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Cemetery listed on National Register of Historic Places- $30,000
Website Enhancement, Cemetery GIS data and input- $250,000
Arboretum Accreditation and new planted tree protection- $65,000
Plat Markers- $100,000
Interpretive/Wayfinding Signage Design and 10 Sign placements-$75,000
Two years inflation adjustment - $52,000
Engineering Consultant fees - $208,000
Contingency - $10,000
Note that #s 62 and 63 are part of the Cemetery Master Plan implementation
63
Cemetery
Roadway
Improvements,
Phase 1
$1 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $3,838,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Phase 1a of a 6 phase road repair project identified in the Cemetery Master Plan. With 7.9 miles of roads and an
estimated $12.5 million dollars in repairs. Roadway Repair Priority Cemetery roadways were prioritized for repair
based on the following characteristics: Roads more frequently used for public and maintenance vehicular
circulation. Roads that also serve as main routes as outlined on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan.
Roads in poor condition were prioritized over those in fair or average condition (See Appendix E for detailed
Roadway Condition Analysis). Road width was given some consideration. Total roadway length within a priority
category was considered in an effort to separate roadways into projects that would be of a more manageable size.
Note that #s 62 and 63 are part of the Cemetery Master Plan implementation
-Costs include: full replacement including demo, reconstruction with asphalt, concrete edge/curb and gutter and
storm drainage improvements, 15% estimate contingency and 40% design/engineering fees. Other soft costs such
as project and construction contingencies, City project management, and permits and fees are not included and
should be added to budget requests as appropriate.
Cost Breakout - Full Repair of All Roads (Priority Street Name Length Width Total SF Repair Cost)
1a Main (N) 1,188 22 26,136 Full $701276
1a Main (N) 167 21 3,507 Full $94,099
1a Main (middle) 1,242 19 23,598 Full $ 633,176
1a Main (sexton) 367 17 6,239 Full $ 167,403
1a 240 N 1,090 16 17,440 Full $ 467,947
1a 330 N(Lindsey) 36 27 972 Full $ 26,080
1a 330 N 1,433 25 35,825 Full $ 961,250
1a Hillside 998 25 24,950 Full $ 669,453
Priority 1a Total 1.3 miles 139,000 sf $ 3,838,000
64
9Line and Rose
Park Asphalt Pump
Tracks
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
9Line $615,777
PORTION IS ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $1,393,600 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The proposed project incorporates the design and construction of two asphalt bike pump tracks, one at the
existing 9Line Bike Park located at 700 West 900 South and the second near the Day Riverside Library at 871 North
Cornell Avenue.
The proposed pump track at the 9Line Bike Park will reconstruct the small existing pump track at the 9Line Bike
Park. While the 9Line Bike Park will still retain its large signature dirt jumps under the freeway this amenity will
improve the pump track and provide a more accessible riding amenity for users of the bike park. Since the
construction of the 9Line Bike Park in 2016 it has become increasingly popular for families of all ages. This
improvement will provide a safe more durable riding surface for park users. The proposed pump track adjacent to
the Day Riverside Library will construct a new asphalt pump track adjacent to the Rosepark Community Garden. In
2020 SLC Public Utilities began a large storm water improvement project at this location. This project required the
removal of a small dirt pump track that was constructed by local users groups. Construction of the asphalt pump
track will replace this asset with a new community amenity for the Rosepark neighborhood.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 18
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
65
Richmond Park
Playground and
Park
improvements
Requested $690,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
This project will replace the existing playground and pavilion at Richmond Park. Both assets are more than twenty
years old. Redevelopment of these features is an opportunity to build on the recent success of the new
community garden. The project will evaluate the location of the new playground and pavilion so that it can
respond to the community garden to create synergies between the three uses and increase visibility into and out
of the site. The full scope of this project includes:
• Design for a new playground and pavilion
• Engagement with the community on project character and site development
• Development of technical drawings for bidding and negotiation
• Demolition of existing playground and pavilion
• Construction of a playground and pavilion
• Construction of new sidewalk connections
• Planting of new trees and waterwise plantings
• Installation of new site furnishings and park signage
66
Library Square
Feasibility, Civic
Engagement and
Design
Development
Requested $225,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The 2002 Council adopted plan for block 37, Library Square, is to create an asset to the community, that is safe,
well used and attracts new development to the area. Library Square is an underutilized public space with wall and
paving system (uneven surfaces, paver movement and concrete settling), failures that are posing a safety hazard.
This project will fund a feasibility study to identify solutions for the failing paving and wall systems; facilitate
outreach to identify new amenities for positive activation; and develop comprehensive design solutions with
phasing strategies for implementation.
Summary of work:
1. Feasibility study: Library Square has multiple paving and wall system failures due to settling of the parking
structure. A compressive study is needed to determine appropriate solutions to ameliorate safety hazards. Existing
conditions analysis and feasibility studies will determine a critical path to correct site failures and propose
appropriate solutions.
2. Civic engagement: The Public spaces at Library Square are underutilized outside of the four major events that
occur during the summer. Salt Lake City’s rapidly growing and densifying population needs places to be outside. A
civic engagement study would identify desired community elements to be incorporated on the Square that would
increase positive activity throughout the day and week.
3. Design development and implementation strategy: The feasibility study will inform design solutions for the wall
and paving failures on the site. Civic engagement will inform new everyday uses to implement as well as design
moves to incorporate to make the site more functional and desirable for large events, this would include shade,
access and circulation improvements. The design will identify a phasing strategy with estimates of probable costs
and implementation strategies for a multi-year improvement plan.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 19
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
67
Donner & Rotary
Glen Park
Community Park
Irrigation &
Landscape Design
and Construction
Requested $650,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
2018 was the driest year on record for the state of Utah. Public Lands experienced budgetary restrictions on water
use, resulting in significant impacts to our properties. Protecting the trees and living landscape requires carefully
designed and managed landscapes and irrigation systems. Decreasing our water needs is a critical element of
climate adaption and a top priority for Public Lands. Significant water use reduction can be achieved by installing a
water efficient irrigation system and reducing passive use areas of manicured turf by installing regionally
appropriate water wise plant material. Areas of high use such as sport-fields can be isolated on an irrigation zone
while trees, shrubs and low water grasses can be on separate zones. Designed appropriately, these landscapes
require less than half the water to maintain conventional landscapes. In addition to creating a more climate
resilient landscape, Public Lands will work with the community to identify desired new amenities such as fitness
equipment, benches and interpretive signage. Planning and design will also focus on improving the parks
circulation network in order to offer a diversity of loops and difficulty ratings for park users. This project includes:
1) Community engagement to create a vision for Donner and Rotary Park;
2) Design development, best practices, and construction documents for Phase I of site implementation; and
3) Construction of new improvements for a portion of the site (approximately 25% or 3 acres) Two future funding
requests will ask for funding for the rest of the site. Design standards and best practices developed in this project
will be used as a tool for future site redevelopment.
68 Capitol Hill Traffic
Calming
Requested $595,194 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
Mitigate commuter cut-through traffic, chronic speeding and industrial traffic: a) the installation of vertical speed-
reduction elements, (b) striping crosswalks, stop lines and bike lanes, (c) curb extensions, pedestrian refuge
islands, partial barriers and 'road diet' measures. This project is at the neighborhood scale and includes East
Capitol Hill BLVD.
$536,966 $58,228
69
Harvard Heights
Residential
Concrete Street
Reconstruction
Requested $1,311,920 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This project will rehabilitate the existing severely deteriorating street, including concrete pavement replacement,
drive approaches, curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs along Harvard Avenue. This street was initially constructed
in the mid-1920's and has not been replaced in the 90+ years since. Rather, temporary fixes have been employed
continuously by paving over the deteriorating concrete using asphalt. The key flaw with this approach--and the
main issue at play here--is that the asphalt doesn't adhere to the concrete surface below, resulting in severe, year-
round potholing. This is both a serious eye-sore and a real safety concern to residents.
Concurrent with the reconstruction of the street, this project will also install several speed humps, speed tables,
and/or any other traffic measures deemed appropriate by the Transportation Division to reduce traffic speed.
There is an understanding of the need to work with city on a final approved design
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 20
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
70 Liberty Wells
Traffic Calming
Requested $400,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The “Liberty Wells Traffic Calming” project seeks to slow motor vehicles, improve safety near the school and near
homes, encourage more transportation choices, and implement recommendations from several Salt Lake City
master plans. These goals are based on feedback from residents of the sections of 600 East, and Kensington,
Bryan, and Milton Avenues, surrounding Hawthorne Elementary School. The project area was determined by the
project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road” and to
benefit students, parents, and teachers at Hawthorne as much as the neighbors on adjacent streets.
The project will also enhance the existing 600 East Neighborhood Byway and extend the partially funded,
proposed Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway east of 600 East. The intersection of the two neighborhood
byways is a unique and cost-effective opportunity. (Neighborhood byways are traffic-calmed, bicycling and
walking-oriented streets with low traffic volumes and speeds.) To date, neighbors have offered their support for
physical street design elements that would accomplish these goals, including traffic circles, median islands,
signage, improved lighting, bulb-outs, and speed cushions. The exact elements to be constructed, however, will
depend on further community engagement, including discussions with neighbors, Hawthorne Elementary School
administrators and school community council, as well as the Salt Lake City School District.
The project scope will include the following elements:
1. Community engagement of neighbors that live and/or own property on and near the project’s streets
(Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues, and 600 East) in order to determine the most popular, feasible, and
effective traffic calming interventions.
2. Design and construction of the recommended interventions.
71 Stratford Bike
Crossing
Requested $200,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This proposal has not gone through a public process or a formal review and approval process by the city. There is
an understanding of the need to work with the city on an approved final design. I'm requesting a modification to
the current 4 way stop at the intersection of 1700 E. and Stratford Ave. This would include removing the current
stop signs on both the east and west sections of road coming from Stratford Ave., and putting in place some form
of traffic reduction system that only allows bikes to go straight through east/west on Stratford. Then placing
something like what's on the crossing at 1300 E and Stratford, where bikers can press a button and the straight
through N/S traffic on 1700 E would yield to bikers as they cross.
72 Sugar House Safe
Side Streets
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This project is intended to improve the safety and comfort of local, neighborhood streets in Sugar House. It is
made up of two basic parts:
1. A study of (1) existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities; (2) the effectiveness of existing traffic calming
measures on Hollywood Avenue (1990s) and McClelland Street (2010s); and, (3) infrastructure and programmatic
recommendations, including the most effective, cost-efficient, and community-supported methods of improving
neighborhood street livability. This study may also include a series of tests of the recommendations.
2. Design and construction, or implementation, of the above recommendations on the project area’s six local
streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street.
Initial ideas from the community include curb modifications, striping, stop signs, street narrowing, raised
crosswalks, increased and enforced truck restrictions, and gateway monuments. The project area was determined
by the project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road”, so to
speak.
$153,221
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 21
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
73 Sunnyside 9Line
Trail Missing Piece
Requested $350,000 from General Fund; Transportation Project
Just before the construction of the Sunnyside Trail between approximately 1400 East and Foothill Drive in 2016-
2017 (part of the soon-to-be-completed 9-Line Trail), the City determined that it was unable to acquire the
property necessary to complete the trail in front of the 1805-1851 East Sunnyside Avenue property owned by the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There is now a roughly 600’ (or one-block) long missing piece of the trail where only a narrow, four-foot wide
sidewalk exists. CIP funding would construct a new section of the 10-12' concrete trail and fill this gap, connecting
to and replicating the look, feel, and impact of the existing segments of the trail to the east (University of Utah
property) and the west (City property).
The City estimates that $350,000 (in 2022 dollars) will be needed to reassess site conditions and constraints,
complete the design (currently at 40%), fund Engineering Division oversight, partially fund property acquisition or
easement, and construct this critical, missing piece of a citywide asset.
Included in the trail construction costs are additional adjustments to slopes, irrigation, fencing, trees and
landscaping, driveways, wet utility inlets and cleanouts, the central walkway leading to the front door of the
chapel, power pole guy wires, and signs that are necessary to ensure appropriate drainage, ADA compliance, and
trail user comfort.
74
Multimodal
Intersections &
Signals
Requested $945,000 from General Fund and $105,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
• Upgrade five aging traffic signals
• Combine with safety and operational improvements for all modes
• Possible transit-focused signal improvements on key Frequent Transit Network corridors
This project will remove the existing traffic signal equipment that has reached the end of its useful life, including
steel poles, span wire, signal heads, and traffic signal loops and will upgrade the intersections with mast arm poles,
new signal heads, pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers, improved detection, and left turn phasing, as
needed.
Fluctuations in construction pricing are particularly relevant to this project, with steel tariffs, labor costs, and
overall construction costs all affecting price.
75
600 North Corridor
Transformation
$4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
During the FY22 annual budget, the Council approved adding $1,879,654 into CIP for the upcoming 600 North
Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA
was less than budgeted and the Council placed the excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding
account. The full amount from the holding account was appropriated for this project.
The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North
complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with recent
construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent years the
Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a safety study of
the 600 North corridor.
$1,879,654
$5,705,720 $2,046,329 $7,305,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $0 $6,901,178 $2,104,557 $7,291,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $1,879,654
Note: text in blue and red is information added by Council staff
Totals by Funding Source:
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 22
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114
TEL 801-535-6403
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_________________________ Date Received: __________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ______________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 20, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer
801-535-6565
DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing
RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion on June 15, 2021 in anticipation of
adopting a Bond Resolution for the aforementioned bond issue; 2) That the City Council consider
adopting a Bond Resolution on July 13, 2021 approving the issuance and sale of up to $58,000,000
principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B (the “Bonds”), and
give authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of and confirm the sale of
the Bonds within certain parameters set forth in the attached Bond Resolution.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Tax- Exempt Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021A – $22,490,000:
Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the cost of the various capital improvement
projects. The list of the capital improvement projects to be financed by this bond issue is attached.
The City’s Bond Counsel has reviewed the attached list of projects and provided their
recommendations to the tax status of the bonds. The list is color-coded to reflect their responses.
Responses highlighted in green are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing.
Responses highlighted in yellow are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing but have
potential private business use.
rachel otto (May 21, 2021 13:58 MDT)
05/21/2021
05/21/2021
Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B
Transmittal to City Council
May 11, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Responses highlighted in red are projects that either have or are likely to have private business use.
The Administration proposes to issue tax-exempt bonds for the projects highlighted in green for the
total of $22,490,000.
Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs
would average $1,307,595 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including
estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules.
Taxable Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021B - $34,600,000:
The Administration proposes to issue taxable bonds for the projects highlighted in yellow and red for
the total of $34,600,000.
Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs
would average $2,111,765 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including
estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The table below summarizes the proposed bond issue:
NEW MONEY
New Money Project List $57,090,000
Tax-Exempt (green highlight) $22,490,000
Taxable (red & yellow
highlights) $34,600,000
The current plan calls for the Bonds to be sold on August 25, 2021.
An estimated debt service, a draft copy of the authorizing resolution of the City are included for your
review. Please keep in mind that these are preliminary drafts and are subject to change.
The Certificate of Determination will need to be signed by the Mayor and Council Chair or their
respective designees on the afternoon of the date of pricing and sale of the bonds, which is currently
scheduled for August 25, 2021.
Attachments
cc: Mary Beth Thompson, Boyd Ferguson, Steven Bagley, Lisa Shaffer, Mathew Cassel, Lorna Vogt,
Cory Rushton, Blake Thomas.
Department Project Dollar Amount Description
Facilities CCB Transformer 2,500,000$ CCB Transformer Need square footage of all buildings served by the transformer. May have
private business use of the portion serving the Leonardo. Depending on private
payments and other private business use, consider financing portion relating to
Leonardo on a taxable basis.
CAN Warm Springs historic
structure stabilization
3,000,000$ Full roof, flashing, drain replacement. Chimney stabilization. Lateral force tier 3 seismic
upgrade. Stucco and window treatment.
Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a
capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Urban Wood Reutilization
Equipment and Storage
Additions
1,700,000$ Storage Building, Equipment Awning, Fencing, Lighting, Utilities to develop a fully
functional Urban Wood Reutilization facility $1,700,000. Horizontal Grinder: Primary
piece of equipment, will produce landscape mulch and EWF playground surface
$1,100,000. Wood Mill: Mill will produce lumber products from urban trees $200,000.
Base on project as described, including usage of wood, entire project is eligible
for tax-exempt financing. Wood sales, if any, should be to general public.
PL Public Lands Multilingual
Wayfinding Signage
1,200,000$ This proposal is for Wayfinding signage throughout the City for the Parks, trails and
natural lands system.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Jordan River Paddle Share
improvements at Exchange
Club Marina 1700 S 7 JR
440,000$
Bond-funded infrastructure includes paddle share lockers (2 locations) with functional life
of 20+ years, reconstruction of Paddle Share/River Access parking with improved
entryway, signage & crosswalk/RRFB pedestrian crossing to existing restroom at 17th
South River Park. Funding for additional paddle-share stations that would compliment
this project is currently being requested from other sources (grants).
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
CAN Fisher Mansion
improvements and
1,500,000$
Concrete, masonry and seismic, thermal and moisture protection.
Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a
capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Allen Park Activation Historic
Structures
1,300,000$ Adaptive re-use/restoration of historic residences in Allen Park to allow them to serve as
artist studio spaces similar to Balboa Park Spanish Village model, with more frequent
rotation of artists & art residencies. Improvements to Allen Park site to accommodate
frequent gallery strolls, art & music festivals, etc. Will it include power source to allow
food trucks, events, etc.? Will full utility upgrades be needed as the structures are now on
septic systems.
Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct
and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is
eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use
and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with
short term exceptions and potentially management contracts (see prior email
and memo).
Trans 600 North Complete Street
Transformation
4,000,000$ A low-cost phase 1 is already funded. Our latest cost estimate shows that we only need
$8.7M, but construction prices keep going up, so that doesn't give much wiggle room. Any
construction that impacts PU? Yes. We have been and will continue to coordinate with
them.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL West Side Neighborhood
Parks
3,400,000$ Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing;
however, repairs could count against 5% working capital limit and there could be
private business use. The City will likely need to actively monitor to ensure
compliance with short term exceptions.
CAN Fisher Mansion restoration 7,500,000$
The full restoration would allow for end uses including community gathering space, venue
for music/art & special events, and potentially a commercial kitchen for food & beverage
service and/or leasable office space.
Leasable office space would create private business use and private payments.
Consider financing office space portion with taxable financing. Other portions of
the project could be financed on a tax-exempt basis since the City will treat the
direct and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures. The City
would need to monitored to ensure compliance with short term exceptions.
PL Cemetery Road Repairs 1,000,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Foothills Trails System, Phase
II, III, Trailheads & Signage
5,250,000$ See Foothills Trails System Plan for Trails Plan Phase II Scope. Major trailhead project
locations = Victory Road: 670 North Victory Road, Popperton Park: 1375 East Popperton
Park Way, Bonneville Blvd: 675 North Bonneville Boulevard, I Street: 925 Hilltop Road
Emigration: 2755 East Sunnyside. Bathrooms included at Bonneville Blvd, Popperton Park
and Victory Road. No Bathrooms included at Emigration or I Street. Phase III Trails
probably not feasible for construction within 3-year window so are excluded from this
budget and planned for future phase, and very possibly funded through external sources
including grants and private donations.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
Ballpark 3,000,000$ 1M-Security & Fencing 1M-Stadium Seating/Stairs Railings 1M Interiors Restrooms &
Elevator Still under evaluation and need additional information, but private business use
is probable as are private payments. Depending on determinations made with
other projects may want to consider taxable financing to provide flexibility.
Quiet Zones 6,100,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Pioneer Park 5,200,000$ Pioneer Park has impact fee funding to develop new components in the park. This funding
would be utilized to rebuild comfort stations (restrooms), take out existing and build new
playground, tennis/pickleball reconstruction and to rebuild the event power for farmers
market and larger scale events. PL has a consultant preparing to start public engagement
in summer of 2021. This project can easily fit in the 3 year time line.
Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct
and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is
eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use
and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with
short term exceptions and any management contract for the concession stand
would need to be reviewed for compliance. May want to consider taxable
financing for the concession stand portion to provide flexibility.
PL Glendale Water Park 10,000,000$ The community's initial requests include a water feature (splash pad, indoor/outdoor pool
etc.) as well as options for open space use including increasing tree canopy, create natural
buffer zones for the river, community open spaces using the site's hills for viewing sheds
and outdoor classrooms. nostalgia-related public art installations to reflect the site’s
original water park use, a food truck court with eating areas, water sports rentals (in
coordination with the Jordan River), and a variety of meeting and seating areas around
the park. The community also has suggested nostalgia-related public art installations to
reflect the sites original water park use, foot truck court, water sports rentals and meeting
/ seating areas around the park, sports courts, recreation fields, perimeter
walking/running trails and an ADA-accessible playground. Lastly the community sees a
connected regional park, similar in scope to Liberty Park or Sugarhouse, connecting the
existing Glendale Park, 1700 South Park, Glendale Golf Course and the former Raging
waters site.
Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing;
however, there could be private business use. The City needs to actively monitor
to ensure compliance with short term exceptions and management contract
guidelines, if applicable.
Total 57,090,000$
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B
(September 16, 2021 )
($57.09M Projects)
Total Issue Sources And Uses
Dated 09/16/2021 | Delivered 09/16/2021
2021A TAX-
EXEMPT
2021B
TAXABLE
Issue
Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $18,840,000.00 $34,800,000.00 $53,640,000.00
Reoffering Premium 3,759,835.65 -3,759,835.65
Total Sources $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.275%)51,810.00 95,700.00 147,510.00
Costs of Issuance 56,520.00 104,400.00 160,920.00
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 22,490,000.00 34,600,000.00 57,090,000.00
Rounding Amount 1,505.65 (100.00)1,405.65
Total Uses $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65
2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 1
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B
(September 16, 2021 )
($57.09M Projects)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --803,666.50 803,666.50 -
06/30/2022 ----803,666.50
10/01/2022 2,080,000.00 1.593%741,846.00 2,821,846.00 -
04/01/2023 --725,277.50 725,277.50 -
06/30/2023 ----3,547,123.50
10/01/2023 2,115,000.00 1.674%725,277.50 2,840,277.50 -
04/01/2024 --707,577.50 707,577.50 -
06/30/2024 ----3,547,855.00
10/01/2024 2,155,000.00 1.899%707,577.50 2,862,577.50 -
04/01/2025 --687,113.50 687,113.50 -
06/30/2025 ----3,549,691.00
10/01/2025 2,200,000.00 2.202%687,113.50 2,887,113.50 -
04/01/2026 --662,893.50 662,893.50 -
06/30/2026 ----3,550,007.00
10/01/2026 2,250,000.00 2.408%662,893.50 2,912,893.50 -
04/01/2027 --635,808.50 635,808.50 -
06/30/2027 ----3,548,702.00
10/01/2027 2,310,000.00 2.644%635,808.50 2,945,808.50 -
04/01/2028 --605,271.00 605,271.00 -
06/30/2028 ----3,551,079.50
10/01/2028 2,370,000.00 2.800%605,271.00 2,975,271.00 -
04/01/2029 --572,091.00 572,091.00 -
06/30/2029 ----3,547,362.00
10/01/2029 2,445,000.00 2.939%572,091.00 3,017,091.00 -
04/01/2030 --536,162.50 536,162.50 -
06/30/2030 ----3,553,253.50
10/01/2030 2,515,000.00 3.024%536,162.50 3,051,162.50 -
04/01/2031 --498,133.50 498,133.50 -
06/30/2031 ----3,549,296.00
10/01/2031 2,590,000.00 2.752%498,133.50 3,088,133.50 -
04/01/2032 --462,497.25 462,497.25 -
06/30/2032 ----3,550,630.75
10/01/2032 2,665,000.00 2.826%462,497.25 3,127,497.25 -
04/01/2033 --424,843.75 424,843.75 -
06/30/2033 ----3,552,341.00
10/01/2033 2,740,000.00 2.895%424,843.75 3,164,843.75 -
04/01/2034 --385,181.25 385,181.25 -
06/30/2034 ----3,550,025.00
10/01/2034 2,820,000.00 2.965%385,181.25 3,205,181.25 -
04/01/2035 --343,369.75 343,369.75 -
06/30/2035 ----3,548,551.00
10/01/2035 2,910,000.00 3.035%343,369.75 3,253,369.75 -
04/01/2036 --299,207.50 299,207.50 -
06/30/2036 ----3,552,577.25
10/01/2036 3,000,000.00 3.104%299,207.50 3,299,207.50 -
04/01/2037 --252,649.50 252,649.50 -
06/30/2037 ----3,551,857.00
10/01/2037 3,095,000.00 3.171%252,649.50 3,347,649.50 -
04/01/2038 --203,584.00 203,584.00 -
06/30/2038 ----3,551,233.50
10/01/2038 3,195,000.00 3.236%203,584.00 3,398,584.00 -
04/01/2039 --151,891.75 151,891.75 -
06/30/2039 ----3,550,475.75
10/01/2039 3,295,000.00 2.920%151,891.75 3,446,891.75 -
04/01/2040 --103,792.75 103,792.75 -
06/30/2040 ----3,550,684.50
10/01/2040 3,395,000.00 2.981%103,792.75 3,498,792.75 -
04/01/2041 --53,182.75 53,182.75 -
06/30/2041 ----3,551,975.50
10/01/2041 3,495,000.00 3.043%53,182.75 3,548,182.75 -
06/30/2042 ----3,548,182.75
Total $53,640,000.00 -$18,166,570.00 $71,806,570.00 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $615,750.00
Average Life 11.479 Years
Average Coupon 2.9503159%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.3636613%
True Interest Cost (TIC)2.2524970%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.1028374%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.2817455%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.1873941%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.474 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 2
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$18,840,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
SERIES 2021A (September 16, 2021 )
($22.49M New Money, 20-Years Level)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --422,391.67 422,391.67 -
06/30/2022 ----422,391.67
10/01/2022 585,000.00 5.000%389,900.00 974,900.00 -
04/01/2023 --375,275.00 375,275.00 -
06/30/2023 ----1,350,175.00
10/01/2023 615,000.00 5.000%375,275.00 990,275.00 -
04/01/2024 --359,900.00 359,900.00 -
06/30/2024 ----1,350,175.00
10/01/2024 650,000.00 5.000%359,900.00 1,009,900.00 -
04/01/2025 --343,650.00 343,650.00 -
06/30/2025 ----1,353,550.00
10/01/2025 680,000.00 5.000%343,650.00 1,023,650.00 -
04/01/2026 --326,650.00 326,650.00 -
06/30/2026 ----1,350,300.00
10/01/2026 715,000.00 5.000%326,650.00 1,041,650.00 -
04/01/2027 --308,775.00 308,775.00 -
06/30/2027 ----1,350,425.00
10/01/2027 755,000.00 5.000%308,775.00 1,063,775.00 -
04/01/2028 --289,900.00 289,900.00 -
06/30/2028 ----1,353,675.00
10/01/2028 790,000.00 5.000%289,900.00 1,079,900.00 -
04/01/2029 --270,150.00 270,150.00 -
06/30/2029 ----1,350,050.00
10/01/2029 835,000.00 5.000%270,150.00 1,105,150.00 -
04/01/2030 --249,275.00 249,275.00 -
06/30/2030 ----1,354,425.00
10/01/2030 875,000.00 5.000%249,275.00 1,124,275.00 -
04/01/2031 --227,400.00 227,400.00 -
06/30/2031 ----1,351,675.00
10/01/2031 915,000.00 4.000%227,400.00 1,142,400.00 -
04/01/2032 --209,100.00 209,100.00 -
06/30/2032 ----1,351,500.00
10/01/2032 955,000.00 4.000%209,100.00 1,164,100.00 -
04/01/2033 --190,000.00 190,000.00 -
06/30/2033 ----1,354,100.00
10/01/2033 990,000.00 4.000%190,000.00 1,180,000.00 -
04/01/2034 --170,200.00 170,200.00 -
06/30/2034 ----1,350,200.00
10/01/2034 1,030,000.00 4.000%170,200.00 1,200,200.00 -
04/01/2035 --149,600.00 149,600.00 -
06/30/2035 ----1,349,800.00
10/01/2035 1,075,000.00 4.000%149,600.00 1,224,600.00 -
04/01/2036 --128,100.00 128,100.00 -
06/30/2036 ----1,352,700.00
10/01/2036 1,120,000.00 4.000%128,100.00 1,248,100.00 -
04/01/2037 --105,700.00 105,700.00 -
06/30/2037 ----1,353,800.00
10/01/2037 1,165,000.00 4.000%105,700.00 1,270,700.00 -
04/01/2038 --82,400.00 82,400.00 -
06/30/2038 ----1,353,100.00
10/01/2038 1,210,000.00 4.000%82,400.00 1,292,400.00 -
04/01/2039 --58,200.00 58,200.00 -
06/30/2039 ----1,350,600.00
10/01/2039 1,255,000.00 3.000%58,200.00 1,313,200.00 -
04/01/2040 --39,375.00 39,375.00 -
06/30/2040 ----1,352,575.00
10/01/2040 1,295,000.00 3.000%39,375.00 1,334,375.00 -
04/01/2041 --19,950.00 19,950.00 -
06/30/2041 ----1,354,325.00
10/01/2041 1,330,000.00 3.000%19,950.00 1,349,950.00 -
06/30/2042 ----1,349,950.00
Total $18,840,000.00 -$8,619,491.67 $27,459,491.67 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $225,240.00
Average Life 11.955 Years
Average Coupon 3.8268033%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.1805479%
True Interest Cost (TIC)1.9544659%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.4430546%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.9803279%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 1.8125237%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.864 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | 2021A TAX-EXEMPT | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 4
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$34,800,000 TAXABLE SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES
2021B (September 16, 2021 )
($34.6M New Money, 20-Years Level)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --381,274.83 381,274.83 -
06/30/2022 ----381,274.83
10/01/2022 1,495,000.00 0.260%351,946.00 1,846,946.00 -
04/01/2023 --350,002.50 350,002.50 -
06/30/2023 ----2,196,948.50
10/01/2023 1,500,000.00 0.310%350,002.50 1,850,002.50 -
04/01/2024 --347,677.50 347,677.50 -
06/30/2024 ----2,197,680.00
10/01/2024 1,505,000.00 0.560%347,677.50 1,852,677.50 -
04/01/2025 --343,463.50 343,463.50 -
06/30/2025 ----2,196,141.00
10/01/2025 1,520,000.00 0.950%343,463.50 1,863,463.50 -
04/01/2026 --336,243.50 336,243.50 -
06/30/2026 ----2,199,707.00
10/01/2026 1,535,000.00 1.200%336,243.50 1,871,243.50 -
04/01/2027 --327,033.50 327,033.50 -
06/30/2027 ----2,198,277.00
10/01/2027 1,555,000.00 1.500%327,033.50 1,882,033.50 -
04/01/2028 --315,371.00 315,371.00 -
06/30/2028 ----2,197,404.50
10/01/2028 1,580,000.00 1.700%315,371.00 1,895,371.00 -
04/01/2029 --301,941.00 301,941.00 -
06/30/2029 ----2,197,312.00
10/01/2029 1,610,000.00 1.870%301,941.00 1,911,941.00 -
04/01/2030 --286,887.50 286,887.50 -
06/30/2030 ----2,198,828.50
10/01/2030 1,640,000.00 1.970%286,887.50 1,926,887.50 -
04/01/2031 --270,733.50 270,733.50 -
06/30/2031 ----2,197,621.00
10/01/2031 1,675,000.00 2.070%270,733.50 1,945,733.50 -
04/01/2032 --253,397.25 253,397.25 -
06/30/2032 ----2,199,130.75
10/01/2032 1,710,000.00 2.170%253,397.25 1,963,397.25 -
04/01/2033 --234,843.75 234,843.75 -
06/30/2033 ----2,198,241.00
10/01/2033 1,750,000.00 2.270%234,843.75 1,984,843.75 -
04/01/2034 --214,981.25 214,981.25 -
06/30/2034 ----2,199,825.00
10/01/2034 1,790,000.00 2.370%214,981.25 2,004,981.25 -
04/01/2035 --193,769.75 193,769.75 -
06/30/2035 ----2,198,751.00
10/01/2035 1,835,000.00 2.470%193,769.75 2,028,769.75 -
04/01/2036 --171,107.50 171,107.50 -
06/30/2036 ----2,199,877.25
10/01/2036 1,880,000.00 2.570%171,107.50 2,051,107.50 -
04/01/2037 --146,949.50 146,949.50 -
06/30/2037 ----2,198,057.00
10/01/2037 1,930,000.00 2.670%146,949.50 2,076,949.50 -
04/01/2038 --121,184.00 121,184.00 -
06/30/2038 ----2,198,133.50
10/01/2038 1,985,000.00 2.770%121,184.00 2,106,184.00 -
04/01/2039 --93,691.75 93,691.75 -
06/30/2039 ----2,199,875.75
10/01/2039 2,040,000.00 2.870%93,691.75 2,133,691.75 -
04/01/2040 --64,417.75 64,417.75 -
06/30/2040 ----2,198,109.50
10/01/2040 2,100,000.00 2.970%64,417.75 2,164,417.75 -
04/01/2041 --33,232.75 33,232.75 -
06/30/2041 ----2,197,650.50
10/01/2041 2,165,000.00 3.070%33,232.75 2,198,232.75 -
06/30/2042 ----2,198,232.75
Total $34,800,000.00 -$9,547,078.33 $44,347,078.33 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $390,510.00
Average Life 11.222 Years
Average Coupon 2.4447718%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.4692782%
True Interest Cost (TIC)2.4424344%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.4136979%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.4739105%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.4447718%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.222 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | 2021B TAXABLE | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 7
Draft of
5/20/21
Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) v3
8709966/RDB/mo
RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2021
A Resolution authorizing the issuance and the sale of not to exceed
$58,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt
basis, for the purpose of financing various City capital improvement
projects; authorizing the execution and delivery of one or more
supplemental trust indentures to secure said bonds; giving authority to
certain officials and officers to approve the final terms and provisions
of the bonds within the parameters set forth herein; authorizing the
taking of all other actions necessary for the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by this resolution; and related matters.
*** *** ***
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), is a duly organized and existing city of the
first class, operating under the general laws of the State of Utah (the “State”);
WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City to
issue its sales and excise tax revenue bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt
basis, as hereinafter provided for the purpose of (a) financing all or a portion of the cost of (i)
acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets,
intersections and electrical facilities], as further described in the below defined Supplemental
Indenture, and (ii) acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital
improvement program projects (collectively, the “Series 2021 Project”); (b) funding any
necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Series 2021 Bonds (defined below)
and (c) paying all related costs authorized by law pursuant to authority contained in the the Local
Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 (the “Act”), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as
amended (the “Utah Code”), and other applicable provisions of law;
WHEREAS, for the purposes set forth above, the City has determined (a) to issue its Sales
and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $58,000,000 (the “Series 2021 Bonds”) (subject to the further limitations outlined herein)
pursuant to the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as amended and
supplemented to the date hereof (the “Master Indenture”), a copy of which is attached here as
Exhibit A and one or more Supplemental Trust Indentures (the “Supplemental Indenture”),
between the City and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”) (the
Master Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture are sometimes collectively referred to
hereinafter as the “Indenture”), and (b) to cause the proceeds of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds
to be applied in accordance with the Indenture;
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Act to finance the Series 2021 Project, to enter into
the Supplemental Indenture, and to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to finance all or a portion of the
costs of financing the Series 2021 Project, to fund any necessary reserves, and to pay all related
costs authorized by law;
- 2 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code provides for the publication of a Notice of
Bonds to be Issued (the “Notice of Bonds”) and the running of a 30-day contest period, and the
City desires to cause the publication of such Notice of Bonds at this time in compliance with said
section with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds;
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-318 of the Utah Code requires that a public hearing be held to
receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and the
potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private sector and that
notice of such public hearing be given as provided by law and, in satisfaction of such requirement,
the City desires to publish a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds (the “Notice of Public Hearing”) pursuant to such Section;
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-307(7) of the Utah Code requires the City to submit the question
of whether or not to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to voters for their approval or rejection if, within
30 calendar days after the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, a written petition requesting
an election and signed by at least 20% of the registered voters in the City is filed with the City;
and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City, it is in the best interests of the City that (a) the
Designated Officers (defined below) be authorized to approve the final terms and provisions
relating to the Series 2021 Bonds and to execute the Certificate of Determination (defined below)
containing such terms and provisions and to accept the offer of the underwriter for the Series 2021
Bonds (the “Underwriter”) for the purchase of the Series 2021 Bonds; and (b) the Mayor, the
Deputy Mayor or the Mayor’s designee (the “Mayor”), be authorized to execute the Official
Statement with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds, all as provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows:
Section 1. Issuance of Bonds. (a) For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby
authorized and directed the execution, issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds in one
or more series (with such adjustments to the series designation as are necessary), on a taxable or
tax-exempt basis, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $58,000,000. The Series 2021
Bonds shall be dated as of the date of the initial delivery thereof. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be
in authorized denominations, shall be payable, and shall be executed and delivered all as provided
in the Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity as
provided in the Indenture.
(b) The form of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the form Supplemental Indenture,
subject to appropriate insertions and revisions in order to comply with the provisions of the
Indenture, is hereby approved.
(c) The Series 2021 Bonds shall be special obligations of the City, payable from and
secured by a pledge and assignment of the Revenues (as defined in the Indenture) received by the
City and of certain other moneys held under the Indenture on a parity with any other Bonds (as
defined in the Indenture) issued from time to time under the Master Indenture, including but not
limited to the City’s (i) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, (ii) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds,
- 3 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Series 2013B, (iii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series
2014A, (iv) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, (v) Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, (vi) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,
Series 2019A and (vii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series
2019B. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not be obligations of the State or any other political
subdivision thereof, other than the City, and neither the faith and credit nor the ad valorem taxing
or appropriation power of the State or any political subdivision thereof, including the City, is
pledged to the payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not constitute
general obligations of the City or any other entity or body, municipal, state or otherwise.
Section 2. Series 2021 Bond Details; Delegation of Authority. (a) The Series 2021
Bonds shall mature on October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of
Determination) of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest (calculated on the
basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) from the Closing Date, payable
semiannually on April 1 and October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of
Determination) of each year, and at the rates per annum and commencing on the dates, all as
provided in that certain Certificate of Determination, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
C, of the Designated Officers (defined below) delivered pursuant to this Section 2, setting forth
certain terms and provisions of the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Certificate of Determination”).
(b) There is hereby delegated to the Designated Officers, subject to the limitations
contained in this resolution, the power to determine and effectuate the following with respect to
the Series 2021 Bonds and the Designated Officers are hereby authorized to make such
determinations and effectuations:
(i) the principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds necessary to
accomplish the purpose of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the recitals hereto and the
aggregate principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds to be executed and
delivered pursuant to the Indenture; provided that the aggregate principal amount of the
Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed Fifty-eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000);
(ii) the maturity date or dates and principal amount of each maturity of the
Series 2021 Bonds to be issued; provided, however, that the Series 2021 Bonds mature
over a period of not to exceed twenty-two (22) years from their date or dates;
(iii) the interest rate or rates, which may be taxable or tax-exempt rates, of the
Series 2021 Bonds and the date on which payment of such interest commences, provided,
however, that the interest rate or rates to be borne by any Series 2021 Bond shall not exceed
__________ percent (____%) per annum;
(iv) the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds and the purchase price to be paid by the
Underwriter of such Series 2021 Bonds; provided, however, that the discount from par of
each series of the Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed two percent (2.00%) (expressed as a
percentage of the principal amount);
- 4 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
(v) the Series 2021 Bonds, if any, to be retired from mandatory sinking fund
redemption payments and the dates and the amounts thereof;
(vi) the time and redemption price, if any, at which the Series 2021 Bonds may
be called for redemption prior to their maturity at the option of the City; provided, however,
the first optional redemption date shall not be later than ten and a half years from the date
of delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds;
(vii) the amount of reserves necessary to be maintained in connection with each
series of the Series 2021 Bonds, if any;
(viii) the use and deposit of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds; and
(ix) any other provisions deemed advisable by the Designated Officers not
materially in conflict with the provisions of this resolution.
For purposes of this resolution and the Series 2021 Bonds, “Designated Officers” means
(a) the (i) Mayor of the City; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the
Mayor’s Chief of Staff; or (iii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Mayor and the
Mayor’s Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer; or (iv) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the
Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and the City Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer of the City and
(b) (i) the Chair of the City Council; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chair
of the City Council, the Vice Chair of the City Council; or (iii) in the event of the absence or
incapacity of both the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council, any other member of the City
Council.
Following the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Designated Officers shall obtain such
information as they deem necessary to make such determinations as provided above and shall make
such determinations as provided above and shall execute the Certificate of Determination
containing such terms and provisions of such series of the Series 2021 Bonds, which execution
shall be conclusive evidence of the action or determination of the Designated Officers as to the
matters stated therein. The provisions of the Certificate of Determination shall be deemed to be
incorporated into this Section 2.
Section 3. Approval and Execution of the Supplemental Indenture. One or more
Supplemental Indentures, in substantially the form of the Thirteenth Supplemental Trust Indenture
attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor is hereby
authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver each Supplemental Indenture on behalf
of the City, and the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered
and directed to affix to each Supplemental Indenture the seal of the City and to attest such seal and
countersign each such Supplemental Indenture, with such changes to each Supplemental Indenture
from the form attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute
conclusive evidence of such approval. The provisions of each Supplemental Indenture, as
executed and delivered, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this resolution. The Master
Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture shall constitute a “system of registration” for all
purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act of Utah.
- 5 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 4. Final Official Statement. A final Official Statement of the City in
substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement presented at this meeting and in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized with such changes, omissions, insertions
and revisions as the Mayor shall deem advisable, including the completion thereof with the
information established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds by the Designated Officers
and set forth in the Certificate of Determination. The Mayor shall sign and deliver a final Official
Statement for distribution to prospective purchasers of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds and
other interested persons. The approval of the Mayor of any such changes, omissions, insertions
and revisions shall be conclusively established by the Mayor’s execution of such final Official
Statement.
Section 5. Preliminary Official Statement to be Deemed Final. The use and distribution
of a Preliminary Official Statement, in substantially the form presented at this meeting and in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized and approved, with such changes,
omissions, insertions and revisions as the Mayor and the City Treasurer, or the Deputy Treasurer
of the City (the “City Treasurer”), shall deem advisable. The Mayor and the City Treasurer are,
and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such
certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the
issuance, sale and delivery of any Series 2021 Bonds and to deem final each Preliminary Official
Statement within the meaning and for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, subject to completion thereof with the information
established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 6. Other Certificates and Documents Required to Evidence Compliance with
Federal Tax and Securities Laws. Each of the Mayor, the City Recorder or any Deputy City
Recorder and the City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to execute (a) such certificates
and documents as are required to evidence compliance with the federal laws relating to the tax-
exempt status of interest on any Series 2021 Bonds and (b) a Continuing Disclosure Agreement,
in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, and such other certificates and documents
as shall be necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission and other applicable federal securities laws.
Section 7. Other Actions With Respect to the Series 2021 Bonds. The officers and
employees of the City shall take all action necessary or reasonably required to carry out, give effect
to, and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and shall take all action necessary in
conformity with the Act to carry out the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, without
limitation, the execution and delivery of any closing and other documents required to be delivered
in connection with the sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds. If (a) the Mayor, (b) the City
Recorder or (c) the City Treasurer shall be unavailable or unable to execute or attest and
countersign, respectively, the Series 2021 Bonds or the other documents that they are hereby
authorized to execute, attest and countersign, the same may be executed, or attested and
countersigned, respectively, (i) by the Chief of Staff, (ii) by any Deputy City Recorder or (iii) by
the Deputy Treasurer of the City. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the officers
and employees of the City are authorized and directed to take such action as shall be necessary and
appropriate to issue the Series 2021 Bonds.
- 6 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 8. Notice of Bonds to be Issued; Contest Period. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code, the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder
shall cause the Notice of Bonds, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F, to be
published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper published and of general circulation
within the City.
For a period of thirty (30) days from and after publication of the Notice of Bonds, any
person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this resolution (including the
Supplemental Indenture attached hereto) or the Series 2021 Bonds hereby authorized or any
provisions made for the security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. After such time, no one
shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of this resolution
(including the Supplemental Indenture) or the Series 2021 Bonds or any provisions made for the
security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds for any cause.
Section 9. Public Hearing. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of
the Act, a public hearing shall be held by the Council on Tuesday, August 17, 2021, during the
Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m., which, as determined by the Council Chair, shall be
held either virtually, at the regular meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room
315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any
combination thereof, to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance by the City of
the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private
sector.
Section 10. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing. The City Recorder or any Deputy
City Recorder (the “City Recorder”) shall publish or cause to be published the Notice of Public
Hearing on the Utah Public Notice Website, created under Section 63F-1-701 of the Utah Code,
no less than 14 days before the public hearing. The Notice of Public Hearing shall be in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit H.
Section 11. Form of Petition. The form of the petition to be used by registered voters in
requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds shall be in substantially
the form attached hereto as Exhibit I.
Section 12. Issuance of Bonds After Thirty-Day Period. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 11-14-307(7) of the Act, if within thirty days after the publication of the
Notice of Public Hearing by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, a petition or petitions, in
the form specified by Section 11 hereof, are filed with the City Recorder, signed by not less than
twenty percent (20%) of the registered voters of the City (as certified by the County Clerk of Salt
Lake County) requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds, then the
Council shall proceed to call and hold an election on the Series 2021 Bonds. If such election is
held and a majority of the registered voters of the City voting thereon approve the Series 2021
Bonds, then, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the City shall thereupon be authorized
to issue the Series 2021 Bonds. If no petition is filed within the thirty-day period after the date of
the final publication of such notice, or if it is determined that the number of signatures on the
petitions filed within the thirty-day period after the date of the final publication of such notice is
less than the required number, the City shall proceed to issue the the Series 2021 Bonds.
- 7 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 13. Sale of the Series 2021 Bonds; Purchase Contract. The Series 2021 Bonds
authorized to be issued herein are hereby authorized to be sold and delivered to the Underwriter,
upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Contract. The Mayor is hereby authorized,
empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Purchase Contract on behalf of the City in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit G, with such changes therein from the form
attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive
evidence of such approval. The City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized,
empowered and directed to affix to the Purchase Contract the seal of the City and to attest such
seal and countersign the Purchase Contract.
Section 14. City Recorder to Perform Certain Acts. The City Recorder is hereby directed
to maintain a copy of this Resolution (together with all exhibits hereto), a copy of the Master
Indenture and the form of the Supplemental Indenture on file in the City Recorder’s office (or the
City Recorder’s temporary office, as applicable) during regular business hours 1 for public
examination by registered voters of the City and other interested persons until at least thirty (30)
days from and after the date of publication of the Notice of Bonds and upon request to supply
copies of the form of petition specified in Section 11 hereof.
Section 15. Prior Acts Ratified, Approved and Confirmed. All acts of the officers and
employees of the City in connection with the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds are hereby ratified,
approved and confirmed.
Section 16. Resolution Irrepealable. Following the execution and delivery of a
Supplemental Indenture, this resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until all of the Series 2021
Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid, cancelled, and discharged.
Section 17. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this resolution
shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of
such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of
this resolution.
Section 18. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
approval and adoption.
(Signature page follows.)
1 Appointments are encouraged as the temporary office is not occupied during business hours due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
- 8 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 13th day of July
2021.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
_______________________________________
Chair
Salt Lake City Council
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Recorder
[SEAL]
APPROVED:
By ____________________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By ____________________________________
Senior City Attorney
A-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT A
[ATTACH COPY OF MASTER TRUST INDENTURE]
B-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT B
[ATTACH FORM OF THIRTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE]
C-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT C
[ATTACH FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION]
D-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT D
[ATTACH FORM OF PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT]
E-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT E
[ATTACH FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT]
F-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT F
NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-316, Utah Code
Annotated 1953, as amended, that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake
City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”) in which it authorized and
approved the issuance of its sales and excise tax revenue bonds in one or more series, on a taxable
or tax-exempt basis (collectively, the “Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed
$58,000,000, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed ____% per annum and to mature
not later than 22 years from their date or dates and to be sold at a discount from par not to exceed
2.00%. The Bonds shall be subject to such optional and mandatory redemption and other
provisions as are contained in the Master Trust Indenture, described below, and the final form of
the Bonds and a Supplemental Trust Indenture, described below.
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of paying all or part
of the cost of (a) (i) acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic
structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical facilities] and (ii) acquiring, constructing,
improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects; (b) funding any
necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Bonds and (c) paying all related costs
authorized by law. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to the Resolution,
including as part of the Resolution a draft, in substantially final form, of a Supplemental Trust
Indenture, and a copy of the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as heretofor
amended and supplemented (the “Master Indenture”), between the City and Zions
Bancorporation, National Association, a trustee, that were before the Council and attached to the
Resolution at the time of the adoption of the Resolution. The City will cause one or more
Supplemental Trust Indentures to be executed and delivered in such form and with such changes
thereto as certain designated officers of the City shall approve, provided that the principal amount,
interest rate or rates, maturity and discount, if any, will not exceed the respective maximums
described above.
The repayment of the Bonds will be secured by a pledge of the legally available revenues
from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2,
Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake City Code);
(b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1,
Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt Lake City
Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10,
Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of Salt Lake
City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City
pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to
Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities received
by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected
pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees associated with
cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20 (collectively,
the “Pledged Taxes”).
F-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
The City currently has $102,490,000 par amount of bonds or notes currently outstanding
that are secured by the Pledged Taxes. More detailed information relating to the City’s outstanding
bonds can be found in the City’s most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that is
available on the Office of the Utah State Auditor’s website (www.sao.state.ut.us).
Assuming a final maturity for the Bonds of approximately 21 years from the date hereof
and that the Bonds are issued in an aggregate principal amount of $__________ and are held until
maturity, based on the City’s currently expected financing structure and interest rates in effect
around the time of publication of this notice, the estimated total cost to the City of the proposed
Bonds is $__________.
A copy of the Resolution (including the draft of the Supplemental Trust Indenture and a
copy of the Master Indenture attached to the Resolution) may be examined by appointment at the
temporary office of the City Recorder located at Plaza 349, 349 South 200 East in Salt Lake City,
Utah, during regular business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. To schedule an appointment
please call (801) 535-7671. Additionally, a protected, pdf copy of the Resolution may be requested
by sending an email to the City Recorder at SLCRecorder@slcgov.com. The Resolution shall be
so available for inspection for a period of at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of the
publication of this notice.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law for a period of thirty (30) days from and
after the date of the publication of this notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest
the legality of the Resolution (including the Supplemental Trust Indenture attached thereto) of the
City or the Bonds authorized thereby or any provisions made for the security and payment of the
Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality
or legality of the Resolution, the Bonds or the provisions for their security or payment for any
cause.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By ____________________________________
City Recorder
[SEAL]
G-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT G
[ATTACH FORM OF PURCHASE CONTRACT]
H-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT H
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ISSUE
SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”)
of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”), calling for a public
hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of its Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds (the “Bonds”) to finance all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and
improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical
facilities] and acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital
improvement program projects (collectively, the “Project”) and the potential economic impact
that the Project will have on the private sector, pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act,
Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Act”).
PURPOSE FOR ISSUING BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds for the purpose of (1) financing all or a portion of the
costs of the Project, (2) funding any necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the
Bonds, and (3) paying the costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds.
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding Fifty-
eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000) to finance the Project. The Bonds may be issued with other
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds being issued for other purposes so the principal amount may
exceed the amount listed above to finance the costs of the Project.
SALES TAXES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED
The City proposes to pledge to the payment of the Bonds all of the legally available
revenues from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter
12, Part 2, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake
City Code); (b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10,
Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt
Lake City Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to
Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of
Salt Lake City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by
the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant
to Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities
received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and
collected pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees
associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20.
H-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
TIME, PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City will hold a public hearing during its City Council meeting which begins at
7:00 p.m. on August 17, 2021. The public hearing will be held either virtually, at the regular
meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building,
451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any combination thereof, as determined by the
Chair of the City Council. All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the
public hearing in the manner that will be described in the agenda for the meeting. Written
comments may be submitted to the City, to the attention of the City Recorder, prior to the public
hearing.
PURPOSE FOR HEARING
The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance
of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE PETITION TO HOLD AN ELECTION
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code, if within 30
calendar days of the publication of this notice on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public
Notice Website, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least twenty percent
(20%) of the registered voters of the City is filed with the City, then the City shall submit the
question of whether or not to issue the Bonds to the voters of the City for their approval or rejection.
If no written petition is filed or if fewer than 20% of the registered voters of the City sign
a written petition, in either case, within 30 calendar days of the posting of this notice on July __,
2021, the City may proceed to issue the Bonds without an election.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By ____________________________________
City Recorder
I-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT I
PETITION
To: City Recorder
Salt Lake City, Utah
We, the undersigned citizens and registered voters of Salt Lake City, Utah, respectfully
request that an election be called by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, to authorize the
issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in a maximum
principal amount not exceeding $58,000,000, as to which notice of intention to issue was published
on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, pursuant to the provisions of a
resolution passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on July 13, 2021, and each for himself or herself says: I have personally signed this
petition; I am a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Utah; my residence and post office address are
correctly written after my name:
I-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
WARNING
It is a felony for any one to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any other name
than one’s own, or knowingly to sign one’s name more than once for the same measure, or to sign
such petition when one knows that he or she is not a registered voter.
REGISTERED VOTER’S PRINTED
NAME (MUST BE LEGIBLE TO BE
COUNTED)
SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED
VOTER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE,
ZIP CODE
[The following certification shall appear on the reverse side of each page
[attached to the Petition containing the signature of voters]
I-3 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
STATE OF UTAH )
: ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
I, _________________________, of _____________________, hereby certify that I am a
registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, that all the names which appear on this
sheet were signed by persons who professed to be the persons whose names appear thereon, and
each of them signed his or her name thereto in my presence, I believe that each has printed and
signed his or her name, and written his or her post office address and residence correctly, and that
each signer is a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of __________, 2021.
Notary Public (or other official title)
Signature:
Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com
2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program [Grand Totals Only (anonymous)]
Division (Priority) / App Ref Organization Name / Application Title Requested Amount Votes Committee Score
72 displayed 2 not included (Duplicates)60,584,684.35
T7 Division of Transportation / 400 South Viaduct Trail (1/4 Cent)900,000.00 6 to 0 18.17
T13 Division of Transportation / 1700 South Corridor Transformation (Redwood to 300 W)363,150.00 7 to 0 18.14
P2 Public Lands / A Place For Everyone: The Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 420,000.00 6 to 0 17.57
P1 Public Lands / Glendale Water Park Development Phase 1 3,200,000.00 7 to 0 17.07
E5 Engineering / Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 300,000.00 7 to 017
T12 Division of Transportation / Transportation Safety Improvements 500,000.00 7 to 017
E3 Engineering / Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 750,000.00 6 to 0 16.8
C20 Sugar House Community Council / Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000.00 6 to 0 16.31
T11 Division of Transportation / Street Multi‐Modal Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 16.29
F1 Fire / Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 318,278.75 7 to 0 16.26
C5 Public Lands / Three Creeks West Park Planning and Design 150,736.00 7 to 0 16.2
T2 Division of Transportation / 900 South & 9‐Line Trail Railroad Crossing (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 016
E2 Engineering / Pavement Condition Survey 175,000.00 7 to 0 15.85
T3 Division of Transportation / Trail Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 15.83
F4 Fire / Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 694,784.80 6 to 0 15.79
P10 Public Lands / Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 440,000.00 6 to 0 15.79
T10 Division of Transportation / Urban Trails & Connections (1/4 Cent)1,045,000.00 6 to 0 15.74
C4 Public Lands / Three Creeks West (Jordan River Trail and Bank Stabilization)490,074.00 5 to 0 15.7
T6 Division of Transportation / Area Circulation Studies / Design (1/4 Cent)215,000.00 6 to 0 15.67
F2 Fire / Single‐Family/Fire‐Behavior Prop 374,863.94 6 to 0 15.57
T1 Division of Transportation / 200 South Transit Transformation (Funding Our Future Transit, 1/4 Cent)3,261,900.00 6 to 0 15.33
T4 Division of Transportation / Local Link Construction Fund / Sugar House (1/4 Cent)500,000.00 6 to 0 15.33
C6 Sugar House Park Authority / Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion ‐ Remove and Replace 183,834.00 6 to 0 15.31
P5 Public Lands / Liberty Park Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report 475,000.00 6 to 0 15.29
F3 Fire / Mixed‐Use Three‐Story Fire Training Prop 815,894.86 5 to 0 15.29
C12 Public Lands / SOS Liberty Park Basketball Courts 99,680.00 6 to 0 15.21
T8 Division of Transportation / Neighborhood Byway Design & Construction (1/4 Cent)1,045,000.00 5 to 0 15.17
E6 Engineering / Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000.00 5 to 1 14.8
T9 Division of Transportation / 900 South Signal Improvements (900 South Reconstruction & 9‐Line Trail Project, 2021‐2023 500,000.00 6 to 0 14.67
C17 Poplar Grove Community Member / 700 S Westside Road Reconfiguration 514,450.00 5 to 0 14.67
T14 Division of Transportation / Multi‐Modal Intersection / Traffic Signal Upgrades 1,050,000.00 6 to 0 14.33
T5 Division of Transportation / Corridor Transformations (1/4 Cent)856,042.00 5 to 1 14.29
P13 Public Lands / Jordan Park Looped Pathways 510,000.00 7 to 0 14.14
P12 Public Lands / Foothills Natural Area ‐ Open Space Acquisition 425,000.00 6 to 1 14.14
P11 Public Lands / Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682.00 7 to 0 14.07
C14 Odyssey House ‐ Inc, Utah / Odyssey House’s Annex Facility Renovation 500,000.00 4 to 2 14.03
E8 Engineering / Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River)3,000,000.00 6 to 014
C22 Ballpark Community Council / Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway Capital Improvement Program Constituent Requ 500,000.00 4 to 114
E7 Engineering / Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River)3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.87
FA3 Public Services Facilities Division / Streets Steam Bay 363,495.00 6 to 0 13.87
P3 Public Lands / Downtown Green Loop, Phase 1 610,000.00 6 to 1 13.86
C15 Engineering / CR ‐ 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 449,315.00 5 to 1 13.85
T15 Division of Transportation / Sunnyside / 9‐Line Trail Missing Piece (1850 East)350,000.00 5 to 1 13.6
E1 Engineering / Street Improvements 2021/2022 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.4
C1 Tracy Aviary / Renovations to Historic Structures: east gate and bath house.156,078.00 5 to 1 13.31
C21 Public / Liberty Wells Traffic Calming 400,000.00 3 to 2 13.2
P6 Public Lands / Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000.00 5 to 1 13.07
C18 Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council / Capitol Hill Traffic Calming 595,194.00 4 to 2 12.9
P14 Public Lands / Richmond Park Playground and Pavilion Replacement 690,000.00 6 to 0 12.86
C11 Wingate Village Townhomes / Wingate Walkway 286,750.00 5 to 1 12.86
C7 Liberty Hills Tennis / Outdoor Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center 202,100.00 3 to 3 12.83
P9 Public Lands / 9Line and Rosepark Asphalt Pump tracks 1,393,600.00 6 to 0 12.79
C23 N/A / Stratford Bike Crossing ‐ 17th E and Stratford 200,000.00 4 to 2 12.71
C9 Wasatch Community Gardens / Harrison Ave & 700 E. Community Garden 103,500.00 4 to 2 12.43
C24 Citizen / Sugar House Safe Side Streets 500,000.00 5 to 1 12.31
P15 Public Lands / Library Square feasibility study, civic engagement, and design development 225,000.00 3 to 2 12.29
C16 David B. Troester / Three Creeks West 1 – Roadways 1,158,422.00 4 to 1 12.17
C8 Liberty Hills Tennis / Re‐surfacing of all existing tennis courts at Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers 300,000.00 4 to 2 12.14
C13 Public Lands / 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, New Irrigation, New Tree Planting 500,000.00 4 to 1 12.1
FA1 Public Services Facilities Division / Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program (6M investment) (Deferred Capital Repla 5,860,449.00 4 to 1 11.83
C3 Liberty Hills Tennis / "Winner on Wasatch" A Four‐Court Total Re‐Construction Project Preparatory to a New Tennis Air D 500,000.00 2 to 3 11.77
P8 Public Lands / Cemetery Multi‐Use Roadway Repair (Phase 1)3,838,000.00 5 to 1 11.62
C2 Dept of Veterans Affairs / Sunnyside Park Sidewalk 72,739.00 4 to 1 11.43
P17 Public Lands / Donner and Rotary Glen Park Landscape Improvements 650,000.00 4 to 2 11.29
P16 Public Lands / Regional Athletic Complex Playground 450,000.00 5 to 1 11.17
E4 Engineering / Logan Avenue Reconstruction 1,405,000.00 4 to 211
E9 Engineering / Wingpointe Levee Design 800,000.00 5 to 1 10.55
FA2 Public Services Facilities Division / Delong Salt Storage Facility 1,504,427.00 5 to 1 9.43
C19 Streets and Sanitation / Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction 1,311,920.00 2 to 4 8.43
C10 Ballpark Community Council / 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 100,000.00 1 to 5 7.67
P7 Public Lands / Cemetery Enhancement for Visitor Research and Knowledge 790,000.00 4 to 2 7.43
P4 Public Lands / Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation 765,325.00 3 to 3 6.86
Attachment 5A FY22 CDCIP Board Project Scores from Highest to Lowest
#Division
Priority Organization Name / Application Title Requested
Amount Votes Committee
Score
3 C14 Odyssey House ‐ Inc, Utah / Odyssey House’s Annex Facility
Renovation $ 500,000 4 to 2 14.03
4 E1 Engineering / Street Improvements 2021/2022 $ 3,500,000 6 to 0 13.4
5 E2 Engineering / Pavement Condition Survey $ 175,000 7 to 0 15.85
6 E3 Engineering / Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 $ 750,000 6 to 0 16.8
7 E5 Engineering / Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 $ 300,000 7 to 0 17
8 E6 Engineering / Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 $ 70,000 5 to 1 14.8
9 FA1
Public Services Facilities Division / Facilities Capital Asset
Replacement Program (6M investment) (Deferred Capital Repla $ 5,860,449 4 to 1 11.83
10 F1 Fire / Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade $ 318,279 7 to 0 16.26
11 F2 Fire / Single‐Family/Fire‐Behavior Prop $ 374,864 6 to 0 15.57
12 C1 Tracy Aviary / Renovations to Historic Structures: east gate and
bath house. $ 156,078 5 to 1 13.31
13 C4 Public Lands / Three Creeks West (Jordan River Trail and Bank
Stabilization) $ 490,074 5 to 0 15.7
14 C5 Public Lands / Three Creeks West Park Planning and Design $ 150,736 7 to 0 16.2
15 C6 Sugar House Park Authority / Sugar House Park Fabian Lake
Pavilion ‐ Remove and Replace $ 183,834 6 to 0 15.31
16 C12 Public Lands / SOS Liberty Park Basketball Courts $ 99,680 6 to 0 15.21
17 P1 Public Lands / Glendale Water Park Development Phase 1 $ 3,200,000 7 to 0 17.07
18 P2 Public Lands / A Place For Everyone: The Emerald Ribbon Master
Plan $ 420,000 6 to 0 17.57
19 P3 Public Lands / Downtown Green Loop, Phase 1 $ 610,000 6 to 1 13.86
20 P5 Public Lands / Liberty Park Master Plan and Cultural Landscape
Report $ 475,000 6 to 0 15.29
21 P6 Public Lands / Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation &
Activation at Allen Park $ 420,000 5 to 1 13.07
22 P10 Public Lands / Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt $ 440,000 6 to 0 15.79
23 P11 Public Lands / Foothills Trailhead Development $ 1,304,682 7 to 0 14.07
24 P12 Public Lands / Foothills Natural Area ‐ Open Space Acquisition $ 425,000 6 to 1 14.14
25 P13 Public Lands / Jordan Park Looped Pathways $ 510,000 7 to 0 14.14
26 P16 Public Lands / Regional Athletic Complex Playground $ 450,000 5 to 1 11.17
27 C17 Poplar Grove Community Member / 700 S Westside Road
Reconfiguration $ 514,450 5 to 0 14.67
28 C20 Sugar House Community Council / Highland High Crosswalk
Enhancements $ 85,000 6 to 0 16.31
29 T1 Division of Transportation / 200 South Transit Transformation
(Funding Our Future Transit, 1/4 Cent) $ 3,261,900 6 to 0 15.33
30 T2 Division of Transportation / 900 South & 9‐Line Trail Railroad
Crossing (1/4 Cent) $ 200,000 6 to 0 16
31 T3 Division of Transportation / Trail Maintenance (1/4 Cent) $ 200,000 6 to 0 15.83
32 T4 Division of Transportation / Local Link Construction Fund / Sugar
House (1/4 Cent) $ 500,000 6 to 0 15.33
33 T5 Division of Transportation / Corridor Transformations (1/4 Cent) $ 856,042 5 to 1 14.29
34 T6 Division of Transportation / Area Circulation Studies / Design (1/4
Cent) $ 215,000 6 to 0 15.67
35 T7 Division of Transportation / 400 South Viaduct Trail (1/4 Cent) $ 900,000 6 to 0 18.17
36 T8 Division of Transportation / Neighborhood Byway Design &
Construction (1/4 Cent) $ 1,045,000 5 to 0 15.17
37 T9
Division of Transportation / 900 South Signal Improvements (900
South Reconstruction & 9‐Line Trail Project, 2021‐2023 $ 500,000 6 to 0 14.67
38 T10 Division of Transportation / Urban Trails & Connections (1/4 Cent) $ 1,045,000 6 to 0 15.74
39 T11 Division of Transportation / Street Multi‐Modal Maintenance (1/4
Cent) $ 200,000 6 to 0 16.29
2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program Grand Totals
Sorted by Funding Log Project #
#Division
Priority Organization Name / Application Title Requested
Amount Votes Committee
Score
2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program Grand Totals
Sorted by Funding Log Project #
40 T12 Division of Transportation / Transportation Safety Improvements $ 500,000 7 to 0 17
41 T13 Division of Transportation / 1700 South Corridor Transformation
(Redwood to 300 W) $ 363,150 7 to 0 18.14
42 C22
Ballpark Community Council / Kensington Avenue Neighborhood
Byway Capital Improvement Program Constituent Requ $ 500,000 4 to 1 14
43 C15 Engineering / CR ‐ 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb $ 449,315 5 to 1 13.85
44 E4 Engineering / Logan Avenue Reconstruction $ 1,405,000 4 to 2 11
45 E7 Engineering / Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) $ 3,500,000 6 to 0 13.87
46 E8 Engineering / Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over
the Jordan River) $ 3,000,000 6 to 0 14
47 E9 Engineering / Wingpointe Levee Design $ 800,000 5 to 1 10.55
48 C16 David B. Troester / Three Creeks West 1 – Roadways $ 1,158,422 4 to 1 12.17
49 FA2 Public Services Facilities Division / Delong Salt Storage Facility $ 1,504,427 5 to 1 9.43
50 FA3 Public Services Facilities Division / Streets Steam Bay $ 363,495 6 to 0 13.87
51 F3 Fire / Mixed‐Use Three‐Story Fire Training Prop $ 815,895 5 to 0 15.29
52 F4 Fire / Fire Training Ground Site Improvements $ 694,785 6 to 0 15.79
53 C2 Dept of Veterans Affairs / Sunnyside Park Sidewalk $ 72,739 4 to 1 11.43
54 C3
Liberty Hills Tennis / "Winner on Wasatch" A Four‐Court Total
Re‐Construction Project Preparatory to a New Tennis Air D $ 500,000 2 to 3 11.77
55 C7 Liberty Hills Tennis / Outdoor Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park
Tennis Center $ 202,100 3 to 3 12.83
56 C8 Liberty Hills Tennis / Re‐surfacing of all existing tennis courts at
Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers $ 300,000 4 to 2 12.14
57 C9 Wasatch Community Gardens / Harrison Ave & 700 E. Community
Garden $ 103,500 4 to 2 12.43
58 C10 Ballpark Community Council / 1300 South Camping Resistant
Landscaping $ 100,000 1 to 5 7.67
59 C11 Wingate Village Townhomes / Wingate Walkway $ 286,750 5 to 1 12.86
60 C13 Public Lands / 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, New Irrigation, New
Tree Planting $ 500,000 4 to 1 12.1
61 P4 Public Lands / Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation $ 765,325 3 to 3 6.86
62 P7 Public Lands / Cemetery Enhancement for Visitor Research and
Knowledge $ 790,000 4 to 2 7.43
63 P8 Public Lands / Cemetery Multi‐Use Roadway Repair (Phase 1) $ 3,838,000 5 to 1 11.62
64 P9 Public Lands / 9Line and Rosepark Asphalt Pump tracks $ 1,393,600 6 to 0 12.79
65 P14 Public Lands / Richmond Park Playground and Pavilion
Replacement $ 690,000 6 to 0 12.86
66 P15 Public Lands / Library Square feasibility study, civic engagement,
and design development $ 225,000 3 to 2 12.29
67 P17 Public Lands / Donner and Rotary Glen Park Landscape
Improvements $ 650,000 4 to 2 11.29
68 C18 Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council / Capitol Hill Traffic Calming $ 595,194 4 to 2 12.9
69 C19 Streets and Sanitation / Harvard Heights Residential Concrete
Street Reconstruction $ 1,311,920 2 to 4 8.43
70 C21 Public / Liberty Wells Traffic Calming $ 400,000 3 to 2 13.2
71 C23 N/A / Stratford Bike Crossing ‐ 17th E and Stratford $ 200,000 4 to 2 12.71
72 C24 Citizen / Sugar House Safe Side Streets $ 500,000 5 to 1 12.31
73 T15 Division of Transportation / Sunnyside / 9‐Line Trail Missing Piece
(1850 East) $ 350,000 5 to 1 13.6
74 T14 Division of Transportation / Multi‐Modal Intersection / Traffic
Signal Upgrades $ 1,050,000 6 to 0 14.33
1
8
7
0
1
ATTACHMENT 6 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City
to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to
recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior
discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended
for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council
consideration.
Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost
Estimate
Bring all facilities out of
deferred maintenance
Appropriations vs. funding
need identified in Public
Services’ Facilities Dashboard
that tracks each asset
$6.8 million
annually or $68
million over ten
years
Expand the City's urban trail
network with an emphasis on
East-West connections
Total paved/unpaved network
miles; number and funding
for improved trail features;
percentage of 9-Line
completed
$21 million for 9-
Line
implementation
Increase the overall condition
index of the City's street
network from poor to fair
Overall Condition Index
(OCI); pavement condition
survey every five years
$133 million cost
estimate (in addition
to existing funding
level)
Implement the Foothill Trails
Master Plan
Distance of improved trails
completed; number and
funding for improved
trailheads
$TBD
Advance the City's
sustainability goals through
building energy efficiency
upgrades
Energy savings; carbon
emission reductions $TBD
Focus on renewal and
maintenance projects over
creating new assets
Number, funding level and
ratio of renewed assets vs.
new assets
$TBD
2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CFP projects. The idea
of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5
million, and over $5 million.
3.Measure CFP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually
measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the CFP
and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CFP. A high
alignment would indicate the CFP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs.
4.Council Adoption of CFP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CFP each year
with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding.
Does the Administration have a preference?
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 4/20/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 421,062$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,002,114$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 8,435,142$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,125,188$ D
14,983,506$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,273$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,105$ Current Month
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,718$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 1,718$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 14,542$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 30,017$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 10,107$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 118$ -$ -$ -$ 118$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 469$ -$ -$ -$ 469$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 276$ -$ -$ -$ 276$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 78,656$ -$ -$ -$ 78,656$
Notes
^1
FY
2
0
2
3
Calendar
Month
1/26/21: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $104k in the next 9 months without offsetting expenditures
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
1
FY
2
0
2
2
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 4/20/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
ValuespSum of Police Allocation Sum of Police Allocation
p Sum of Police AllocationCrime lab rent 8417001 -$ 118$ -$ (118)$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ A
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 3,507$ 1,955$ 58$
Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 69,291$ 470,396$
Police impact fee refunds 8417006 510,828$ -$ -$ 510,828$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$
Grand Total 2,512,316$ 289,499$ 71,246$ 2,151,572$
Fire
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,083$ 567$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ 7,428$ 44,612$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ B
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 6,966$ 3,941$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ -$ 10,516$ 56,031$
Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ 541,106$ -$
Grand Total 1,164,177$ 13,145$ 949,764$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ 39,697$ 133,320$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 6,388$ 1,213$ 42$
337 Community Garden, 337 S 40 8416002 277$ -$ -$ 277$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 470$ 296$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ 270$ 786$ C
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,977$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ -$ 10,287$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 86,322$ 19,702$ 64,364$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
FY Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 4,328$ 14,683$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ -$ 6,589$ 9,350$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ -$ 6,589$ 20,411$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 16,546$ 50,034$ 59,025$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 407,516$ 37,648$ 70,081$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ -$ 257,265$ 92,736$
Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ 875$ 101,381$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 35,506$ 51,934$ 112,560$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 574,709$ 4,080$ 148,211$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 225,000$ -$ -$ 225,000$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 10,285$ 57,026$ 282,939$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ 979$ -$ 326,699$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ 9,165$ 2,088$ 388,747$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ -$ 490,830$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 540,732$ -$ -$ 540,732$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 46,474$ 33,569$ 1,065,351$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 274,321$ 46,898$ 3,120,981$
Grand Total 11,415,868$ 1,512,215$ 794,781$ 9,108,873$
Streets
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$
500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 96,637$ 478,363$ -$
LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ -$ 124,605$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 32,718$ 8,309$ -$ D
700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 2,449$ 1,155,057$ -$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ -$ 20,821$ 1,539$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,865$ 435$ 2,244$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 142,326$ 69,591$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ 6,020$ 61,182$ 57,798$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 69,002$ 56,815$ 84,935$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ 1,264$ 8,990$ 137,658$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ -$ -$ 152,500$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ 72,947$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ -$ 15,688$ 235,628$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ 213,551$ 607,870$ 2,036,669$
Grand Total 9,292,247$ 681,222$ 3,382,117$ 5,228,908$
Total 24,384,609$ 2,496,081$ 5,197,908$ 16,690,620$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8,435,142$
5,125,188$
14,983,506$
8484002
8484003
8484005
421,062$
$1,002,114
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
Parks 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate
Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000 $168,000
Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000 $224,000
4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000 $450,000
8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $550K - $600K $700,000
Site Master Plan $50K - $75K $75,000-$100,000
Cultural Landscape Report $75,000-$150,000
City-wide Comprehensive Study $150K - $250K $200,000-$300-000
Installed with sewer connection $15K - $30,000 $35000- $50,000
Playground Replacement $150K - $250K $450,000-$550,000
Native soil field $150,000 $400,000-$500,000
Sand-based field $400,000 $1,000,000
Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)$200,000 $250,000
Fencing (6 ft. vinyl coated chain link)$45.00-$55.00/LF
Patch, repair and paint $150,000 $168,000
New post tension court $250,000 $300,000
Hand-built natural surface single track trail (40"
width)$6-12/LF $25.00-$30.00/LF
Machine-built natural-surface trail (40" width)$20-25/LF $10.00-$15.00/LF
Asphalt Trail $3.50/SF $5.00/SF
Concrete Trail (6" thick)$4.50/SF $8.00/SF
Soft Surface - Crushed stone $2.50/SF $6.00-$10.00/ SF
Off-leash Dog Parks $250K - $350K $ 280,000-$392,000
Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+$75,000 +
Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)$350 $750
Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $100K - $200K $ 112,000- $224,000
Transportation 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate
Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles =
1.5 actual miles)500,000+$600,000+
Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual mile) 2,000+$2,500+
Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)$400,000 $500,000-1,000,000
Traffic Signals - New 250,000$ 350,000.00$
Traffic Signals - Upgrades 250,000$ 350,000.00$
HAWK Signals 130,000$ 150,000.00$
Crosswalk - Flashing 60,000$ $75,000
Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights 25,000$ $30,000
Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of
road $15K - $25K $18,000-$27,000
Driver Feedback Sign 8,000$ $9,500
Speed Table / Raised Crosswalk 25,000$ $30,000
Pedestrian Refuge Island 10,000$ $12,000
Curb Extension at Intersection 20,000$ $25,000
Crosswalk 1,600$ $1,800
Streets 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate
Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)280,000$ 335,000$
Crack Seal (Lane Mile)5,000$ 6,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)500,000$ 600,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile)$700k - $1.2 M $840,000 - $1,440,000
Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)4$ $5
Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)$ 7 - $10 $8 - $12
Note: Last updated July 2021
Studies
Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work)
Regular CIP Project Costs
General Rules of Thumb
NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available (which may be out of date), vary by project, and do
not include on-going maintenance.
Drinking Fountains
Multi-purpose Field Improvements
Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts)
Path/ Trail Improvements
Attachment 8
Funding
Source
Cost
Center Description Remaining
Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status?
8317057 Deteriorated Sidewalk 2,237.00$
8318061 900 West Neighborhood nodes an 46,728.00$
8318062 Deteriorated or Missing Concre 5,987.00$
8318063 Jordan River Parkway 181,571.00$
8317359 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C 112,658.00$
8317361 Street Reconstruction Improv 49.00$
8314031 Driver Feedback Signs 86,320.00$
8314033 SugarHouse Circulation 96,736.00$
8317030 Sugar House Park Roadway Maint 24,836.00$
8317032 Bridge Maintenance Program 20,841.00$
8317033 Paver Crosswalks Reconstructio 33,392.00$
8317036 Street Improvements: Reconstru 14,522.00$
8318023 Gladiola 900 S Imp 38,047.00$
8318154 1300 E Class C 443,879.00$
8310077 Regional Sports Complex Donati 3,154.00$
8314094 West Salt Lake Master Plan Imp 8,598.00$
8314100 900 S Oxbow 619.00$
8314103 Warm Springs Park Master Plan 223.00$
8314104 Genesee Trailhead Acquistion 229,927.00$
8314105 Fisher Mansion Carriage House 102,751.00$
8315083 Wakara Way/Arapeen Dr Donation 35,566.00$
8317064 Jordan River Trail - Union P 500,000.00$
8315027 Bikeway - Close the gap 6,989.00$
8315073 City Cemetery Master Plan 25,740.00$
8316026 Six Traffic Signal Upgrades, 9 1,452.00$
8316031 Fairmont Park Pond Restoration 3,097.00$
8316041 PPL Deferred Maintenance, City 2,309.00$
8316046 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 104,210.00$
8316070 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W 13,195.00$
8316085 Contingency 100,000.00$
8317017 Recreation/Open Space GO Bond (16,584.00)$ Why is this negative?
8317024 Sorenson Multicultural Center 27,452.00$
8317025 500/700 S Reconstruction 455,159.00$
8317029 Bus Stop Enhancements 17,269.00$
8317043 Parks and Public Lands Compreh 128,823.00$
8317049 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH 79,995.00$
8317055 Capital Facilities Plan 4,928.00$
8317096 Fire Station #3 2,200.00$ General Fund
Dontions
Class C
CDBG
8318027 Public Way Concrete Restoratio 40,413.00$
8318028 Bridge Maintenance 77,132.00$
8318033 Concrete Rehab 3,431.00$
8318045 Bikeways Urban Trails 109,235.00$
8318046 Warm Springs Restrooms 12,993.00$
8318047 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway 272,091.00$
8318048 Miller Park ADA access 371,369.00$
8318049 Jordan R. Flood Control 7,023.00$
8318050 Artesian Well Park Redevelopme 1,332.00$
8318054 Fairmond Salt Storage 7,111.00$
8318055 9 Line Central Ninth 152,500.00$
8318084 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CIP 110,104.00$
8318085 Computer Rm Cooling Units 40,787.00$
8318087 Ball Field Lights 2,979.00$
8318097 Percent for Art 98,161.00$
4,251,536.00$
General Fund
TOTAL of ALL SOURCES
600/700 North 26 Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
I-215 to Redwood Road
In this western segment, 700
North will maintain two vehicle travel
lanes in each direction with left turn
lanes.
The redesign includes numerous
changes to balance vehicle mobility
with the needs of pedestrians and
cyclists.
Protected bike lanes
A curb-separated bike lane is
recommended for the street design.
Narrowing the vehicle travel lanes
frees up space for upgrades to
the bike facilities. The relatively
limited number of driveways and
lack of on-street parking makes this
configuration ideal.
Landscaped medians
Landscaped medians are placed
strategically in the center turn lane on
this segment of 700 North to support
pedestrian crossings, reduce the scale
of the street, add greenery, slow traffic,
and provide a neighborhood gateway.
Morton pedestrian-activated
crossing
This segment of 700 North lacks
frequent pedestrian crossings. This
pedestrian activated crossing at
Morton Drive can provide a place to
cross and help slow traffic as it enters
the neighborhood.
MO
R
T
O
N
D
R
.
I
-
2
1
5
DO
R
O
T
H
E
A
W
Y
.
2200 West through I-215 Interchange
The segment of 700 North from 2200
West through the I-215 interchange,
while included in this corridor study, is
not shown in this illustrative diagram.
The lane configuration for this segment is
recommended to stay the same as existing,
with improvements focused on visibility,
protection, and conflict mitigation of active
transportation facilities.
600 - 700 North Illustrative Concept
LEGEND
Roadway lanes and parking
New landscaped areas
New pedestrian space
Bike lane
Bus stop DRAFT
27600/700 North Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
Star Crest Drive crossing
Star Crest Drive is planned as a
Neighborhood Byway. These Byways
formalize quiet streets into a network
of corridors that offer comfortable
routes for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The key strategy to a Neighborhood
Byway is to provide safe signalized
crossings at major barrier streets.
Trade on-street parking for a
protected bike lane
Complete streets inevitably involve
trade-offs and compromises. The south
side of 700 North between Morton
Drive and east of Sir Anthony Drive
(2.5 blocks) is the only place with on-
street parking between 2200 West and
Redwood Road. This plan recommends
removing this small amount of
residential-oriented on-street parking
to allow for a continuous protected bike
lane. This trade-off creates a safe bike
environment and maintains current
vehicle capacity.
Sidewalk-level bikeway
This plan recommends a bike
path raised to sidewalk-level
between Redwood Road and
approximately 1500 West. This will
connect the protected bike lanes
to the west with high-comfort bike
infrastructure that accesses the
Jordan River Parkway, Riverside
Park, and Backman Elementary.
Sir Anthony pedestrian-
activated crossing
This segment of 700 North
lacks frequent pedestrian
crossings. This pedestrian
activated crossing at Sir
Anthony Drive can provide
a place to cross and help
slow traffic as it enters the
neighborhood.
Redwood Road crossing
improvements
While the recommended street
configuration does not create major
opportunities for shortening the
Redwood Road/700 North pedestrian
crossings, look for opportunities to
increase visibility, improve corner
environment, or optimize crossing
time.
Redwood Road intersection area
transit stops
The commercial node here is an
important destination for basic daily
needs. In anticipation of the new
transit service on 600 North (Rt 205)
and 1000 North (Rt 1) - part of the
Frequent Transit Network plan - Salt
Lake City and UTA are planning new
stops and upgrades to existing stops.
Transition to one through lane
each way
East of Redwood Road, the
corridor transitions to a
configuration with one vehicle lane
in each direction. This change is
necessary to create space in the
narrowest section of the corridor
to provide high-quality streetscape
features and multi-modal
environment.
ST
A
R
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
.
SI
R
A
N
T
H
O
N
Y
D
R
.
RE
D
W
O
O
D
RD
.
DRAFT
600/700 North 28 Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
Improve on-street parking
Existing on-street parking remains - it is especially
important for Riverside Park use. However,
pedestrian crossings and traffic calming
will improve access and safety to
parking areas.
Manage driveway
access
Ensure commercial
driveway conflicts are
treated properly, with
bike markings and
driveway cuts do not
interrupt sidewalk
grade.
Access management
using raised medians is
appropriate for closely
spaced driveways near
Redwood Road.
New park edge
Reconfiguring 600/700
North to expand the
pedestrian and bicycle
environments also is a
major opportunity to
transform the edge of
Riverside Park to become
more permeable and
active with more shade,
pathways into the park,
and amenities such as
benches or even picnic
pavilions.
Improved crossing at
Jordan River
The Jordan River
Parkway crossing is
shortened and made
more visible by the
addition of curb bulb-
outs and a median
refuge.
Improved mid-park crossing
The existing pedestrian crossing at
Backman School and Riverside Park
is shortened and made more visible
by the addition of curb bulb-outs
and a median refuge.
Realign 1500 West to create
gateway and crossing
for park, school and
neighborhood
A major move recommended
by this plan is a realignment of
1500 West and the Riverside
Park parking lot driveway to
create a four-way intersection.
This four-way intersection
accomplishes several things: It
reduces the awkwardness of
this area; it creates a place for a
pedestrian crossing at Backman
School’s front door and the entry
to the park; it calms traffic; and it
creates the opportunity for entry
plazas for the park, school, and
neighborhoods to the east.Raised bike lane
along park and
school
High demand for
access to Riverside
Park and Backman
School, on-street
parking, and few
driveways mean an
ideal opportunity for
raised bike lanes at
the sidewalk grade
providing a safe bike
environment for the
full range of bike and
micromobility users
riding along 600/700
North.
The intersection reconfiguration also creates
public green space benefits - an active
use of the current landscaped triangle, a
terminus and quality access point for the wide
landscaped median and pathway extending
Riverside Park to the east, and perhaps even
an extension of Backman School outdoor
classroom space into these plazas.
RI
V
E
R
-
SI
D
E
D
R
.
JO
R
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
150
0
W
E
S
T
Riverside Park
Backman
Elementary School
Keep center turn lane
The plan recommends including the two-way
center turn lane to allow more flexibility with
on-street parking and turning around. DRAFT
29600/700 North Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
Begin landscaped median parkway
with path
The reconfigured 1500 West/Riverside
Park driveway intersection is the
starting point for the wide landscaped
median that runs eastward to 900
West. The median has a pathway
running down it, flanked by trees;
users at this west end access the path
via the 1500 West crossing.
This west end of the median parkway
can also include neighborhood
gateway elements such as plantings,
monuments, or public art.
1300 West Neighborhood Byway
treatment
A Neighborhood Byway is planned
for 1300 West through Rose Park and
Fairpark. Where 1300 West crosses
600 North, the median parkway
can extend across the intersection,
creating a highly safe crossing and
neighborhood open space node. While
this design restricts left turns into and
from 1300 East, the trade-off with the
Byway crossing and public green space
created is worthy.
Protected bike lane
In this segment of 600 North, the
raised bike lane along the Backman
School/Riverside park segment
transitions to a bike lane in the
roadway, protected by a curb and
likely vertical delineators. This is an
opportunity created by the lack of on-
street parking for this segment. Having
the bike lane in the roadway allows
existing curb locations to remain.
Median intersection
treatments
Where the median parkway
crosses an intersection that
runs through the median
area, a special treatment will
be needed. Left turn lanes
will be preserved, but the
crossing median path will
need high-visibility markings,
and median noses should be
placed as close together as
possible. A raised crossing
could be considered.
Pedestrian realm largely remains as-is in this segment
The sidewalk and park strip will largely remain in its existing
condition for this segment of the corridor (Catherine Street to 1200
West). Exceptions are reconfigured corners and new bus stop areas.
Bus stops in a constrained environment
The lack of an on-street parking lane and only one through lane means that
room will need to be made for a bus pullout at the bus stops planned for this
segment - likely by routing the bike lane up onto the curb into the pedestrian
realm, behind the bus stop pad.
CA
T
H
E
R
I
N
E
ST
.
14
0
0
W
E
S
T
CO
L
O
R
A
D
O
S
T
.
13
0
0
W
E
S
T
OA
K
L
E
Y
S
T
.
Potential signal
Consider a full traffic
signal retrofit at 1400
West intersection.
DRAFT
600/700 North 30 Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
Narrower median
east of 1200 West
The inclusion of on-
street parking along
600 North east of
1200 West means that
the center planted
median will need to be
narrower - in the range
of 20 to 25 feet.
1200 West bulbout/plaza/crossing
The wide Fairpark streets (in contrast to
the narrow Rose Park streets) create the
opportunity for large bulb-outs extending
into the corridor’s cross streets on the south
side. These can be designed as public plazas,
especially in conjunction with new bus stops.
Perhaps the best such opportunity is at 1200
West, where a demonstration project along
these lines was built in 2020.
Pedestrian realm largely
remains as-is in this
segment
The sidewalk and park strip
will largely remain in its
existing condition for this
segment of the corridor.
Exceptions are bulb-outs at
intersection crossings and
new bus stop areas.
New bus stops
Bus stops along 600 North between
800 West and 1200 West will be located in
this segment’s wide existing park strips at 900
West, 1000 West, and 1200 West. Bus stops
can be catalysts for landscape, streetscape
and public space improvements that celebrate
neighborhood identity and provide rider
comfort. Some on-street parking will be
displaced to accommodate the bus stop
activity.
Buffered bike lanes
Buffered bikes lanes are an
appropriate design for this
segment given the changes
to vehicle travel lanes and
center median, which is
expected to reduce vehicle
speeds. Buffered bike lanes
also are compatible with other
priorities like on street parking
and driveway access.
Rambler Dr. intersection
Rambler Drive’s wide
parking lane on the south
side of its intersection with
600 North provides the
opportunity for bulb-out
curb extensions to shorten
the pedestrian crossing,
calm traffic and create
public open space.
12
0
0
W
E
S
T
RA
M
B
L
E
R
D
R
.
MA
R
I
O
N
S
T
.
More pedestrian crossings
In this diagram, marked pedestrian
crossings are shown at every “city
block” street - i.e. 1200 West, 1300
West) - however, with the slowed
design speed of the corridor and
median refuge, it may make sense
to consider additional crossings
at the interim streets (i.e. Marion
St., Chicago St.), which would also
provide access to the median space.
DRAFT
31600/700 North Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvement Study
1000 West Intersection
At the 1000 West intersection
the plan recommends bulb-out
curb extensions, a median refuge,
and bus stops, transforming this
intersection into a more walkable,
rideable neighborhood node.
Transition to 2 through lanes
each way east of 900 West
900 West is a key transition
point. East of this point, 600
North transitions back to a
configuration of two through
lanes each way (the street cross
section is generally unchanged
from existing conditions).
800 West bike crossing
improvements
Where 600 North crosses 800 West,
the existing pedestrian activated
crossing is enhanced. This crossing
will move westbound cyclists coming
off the two-way path over the viaduct
into the westbound buffered bike lane
on the north side of the street, and
improve north-south crossing.
6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\6RXUFH (VUL0D[DU*HR(\H(DUWKVWDU*HRJUDSKLFV&1(6$LUEXV'686'$86*6$HUR*5,',*1DQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
Eastern end of center planted
median: neighborhood
gateway
The 900 West intersection
marks the eastern end of the
center planted median that runs
westward from Riverside Park;
the median could have features
creating a gateway to Fairpark
and Rose Park.
10
0
0
W
E
S
T
90
0
W
E
S
T
CH
I
C
A
G
O
S
T
.
80
0
W
E
S
T
DE
X
T
E
R
S
T
.
AM
E
R
I
C
A
N
BE
A
U
T
Y
D
R
.
DRAFT
1 DRAFT July 14, 2021
DRAFT 600/700 North Preferred Concept
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to summarize recommendations for 600/700 North corridor, and to
provide some context about the process and rational behind the recommendations. In late 2019 the
Study began without any funding commitments; since then several significant funding sources have
been cobbled together from various Federal, State, and local sources. The Preferred Concept presented
in this document reflects a transformative vision for the corridor, and it should be emphasized that
additional refinement and engineering is necessary to clearly understand how much additional funding
is needed. It is also noted that implementation is expected to occur in phases, with roadway
reconstruction activities preceded by spot improvements to crosswalks and bus stops.
Project Goals
The 600/700 North Corridor Stakeholder Committee established a set of 10 Corridor Goals:
1) Maintain and enhance the link among
600/700 North corridor neighborhoods and
the rest of Salt Lake City
2) Link people and neighborhoods across
600/700 North
3) Maintain the corridor’s regional connections
4) Calm traffic to create a safe corridor
5) Create a beautiful street with great places
reflecting neighborhood pride
6) Improve access to and leverage Jordan River
Parkway, Riverside Park, and the
surrounding corridor parks and open space
network
7) Support and shape corridor commercial
nodes with walkable character and
neighborhood-oriented services
8) Implement and support Salt Lake City’s
Frequent Transit Network and other transit
connections
9) Improve the safety, consistency, and
comfort of east-west bicycle travel in the
project area.
10) Create a comprehensive and integrated set
of solutions for the entire corridor
Working closely with the Committee, the project team developed three alternative concepts for the
corridor that achieve these goals in different ways:
Concept 1: Baseline with Improvements - The current roadway layout with five lanes generally remains.
Improvements are added for walking, biking, and transit.
Concept 2: Green Boulevard - A wide landscaped median is added to the center of the street in addition
to walking, biking, and transit improvements.
Concept 3: Streetside Park - A portion of the street space is repurposed as a linear park extending from
Riverside Park to provide a variety of amenities and public space.
2 DRAFT July 14, 2021
In addition to these core ideas, each concept included options for the Backman School/Riverside Park
area and the I-15 interchange area.
The team presented these options to the public through an online story map, which included a short
survey. The survey received nearly 500 responses that provided both quantitative and qualitative
feedback. This feedback conveyed a series of clear – sometimes complementary, sometimes conflicting -
messages:
• Desire for green space and community open space as well as overall investment in the Westside
neighborhoods, serving the purposes of creating a beautiful community and providing usable
community space – embodying Goal 5.
• Desire for safe bike travel along the corridor, embodying Goal 9.
• Desire to slow traffic and create an overall safe environment for all street users – embodying
Goal 4.
• Desire for 600/700 North to retain its function of moving people through Westside
neighborhoods and to regional destinations, embodying Goal 1; and concern that one lane each
way could not sufficiently move motor vehicle traffic now and in the future.
• Concern about the viability, sustainability and safety of open space and the fit of open space
within the neighborhood context.
In addition, although it was less emphasized by the public, one key goal of the project from the outset is
to integrate the new frequent transit network service into the corridor with high quality transit stops and
waiting environment.
The team also considered the results of detailed traffic modeling on the corridor that concluded that
one lane each direction from 900 West to Redwood Road can handle the existing traffic volumes as long
as left and right turns lanes are provided at key intersections.
The team received guidance from the Stakeholder Committee in interpreting these results. In speaking
with committee members, the team gleaned some key insights – that the area deeply desires a quality
investment, though many in the community fear the change such an investment would bring. At the end
of the day, many committee members expressed that a smaller, non-transformative project would not
create the type of traffic calming, connections, and public spaces that they feel the corridor needs,
embodied in the Corridor Goals.
Based on this feedback and these considerations, the team developed a Preferred Concept for the
600/700 North Corridor. The preferred concept is a mix of the three alternative concepts presented,
taking on the strengths of each. This preferred concept combines and applies the alternatives in ways
appropriate for the context of different segments of the corridor.
It may be useful to think of the overall shape of the preferred concept as an “hourglass,” with more
traffic demand and corresponding traffic capacity at either end of the corridor, serving the two freeway
3 DRAFT July 14, 2021
interchanges and 900 West and Redwood Road corridors, while the neighborhood core of the corridor,
between Redwood Road and 900 West, has less traffic demand and more desire for slow traffic and
neighborhood activity associated with homes, Backman School, Riverside Park and Jordan River Parkway,
and neighborhood commercial uses.
Correspondingly, the two ends of the corridor would retain two lanes each way, while this
“neighborhood core” of the corridor would be reconfigured to one lane each way – with the space
gained used to create a mutually reinforcing “ecosystem” of slower vehicle speeds, better active
transportation conditions, community space, and beautification.
Draft Preferred Concept diagram
The diagram above shows how these pieces fit together at a high level. Here is a breakdown:
• One part of the “neighborhood core” of the corridor, from 900 West to 1500 West, is a version of
Concept 2 with lanes reconfigured to one through lane each way and turn pockets at
intersections. This concept has the central feature of the landscaped median proposed in
Concept 2 but incorporates the usable open space popular with Concept 3’s linear park by
4 DRAFT July 14, 2021
including a pathway down the center of the median between two rows of trees, from 1200 West
to 1500 West. This median would be a modern version of the planted medians found
throughout Salt Lake’s streets such as 200 West and 600 East – with more useable space and
having sustainable landscaping. The segment of the median with the pathway would have
marked crossings across the minor side streets in the medians.
Typical cross section, 600 North from 900 West to 1500 West, showing two different approaches to bike facility.
Median path would only run from 1200 West to 1500 West.
• In addition to the popularity of the median concept with the public (it received the highest rating
of the three concepts), there are several practical arguments for a landscaped median
configuration:
o Having this space and pathway in the median is appropriate for the single-family
residential context of the corridor, creating the community open space desired by the
community, but separating it from people’s front yards.
o It is easier to plant larger trees in the median, where there would be no power lines
along it, unlike along the park strip.
5 DRAFT July 14, 2021
o Putting the open space in the center allows the curbs to remain where they are and
keeps flexibility as to just how active the median can be.
o The median’s width from 1200 West to 1500 West would be about 30 feet, allowing for
an 8-to-10-foot path with plenty of room on either side for buffer and trees/landscaping,
as well as the ability to continue the path into the median nose alongside a narrow turn
pocket. For reference, the 600 and 800 East medians are about 24 feet; the 300 South
median in downtown, which has a pathway to access the median parking, is about 30
feet.
o The minor nature of the cross streets (and their narrow width on the Rose Park side)
also make well-marked median crossings feasible at Oakley Street, Colorado Street,
1400 West and Catherine Street/Circle. The median would extend across the 1300 West
intersection to enhance the crossing 1300 West Neighborhood Byway.
o The median is one big move that, if done well, could make a major contribution to
creating a slower, human scale environment – reducing the traffic to one lane each way
and adding landscaping makes a wide median a more hospitable place to be.
Examples of planted medians and median crossings in (clockwise from top left) Bogota, Colombia;
New York City; Downtown Salt Lake City; and Oakland, California.
• The other part of the neighborhood core segment, alongside Backman School and Riverside
Park, will be a blend of Concepts 2 and 3, with an alignment of 1500 West and the park drive to
create a crossable 4-way intersection serving as a gateway to the neighborhood, transition
between the two neighborhood core cross sections, and more navigable entry to the park.
6 DRAFT July 14, 2021
600/700 North through this segment west of 1500 West will have three lanes (short medians at
pedestrian crossings), on-street parking, and raised bike lanes behind the curb alongside
enhanced sidewalks, improving the safety and accessibility of this segment and its community
destinations.
Typical cross section, 600/700 North at Riverside Park
7 DRAFT July 14, 2021
An example of a recently constructed street in Sommerville, Massachusetts with a similar raised bike lane
configuration as to that envisioned on 600-700 North in the Riverside Park segment.
• For the corridor from 800 West to I-215, we believe we can cover over 80 percent of the east-
west distance with protected bike facilities, whether through a bike lane raised on the curb
(Backman School/Riverside Park segment), a pathway shared with pedestrians (between Jordan
River and Redwood Road), a curb/delineator-protected lane (1200 West to 1500 West and
Redwood to I-215), or in rare circumstances, a parking-protected lane (potentially some limited
places between 900 West and 1200 West and between Redwood and I-215).
• The transitional segments on either end of this neighborhood core – the “wide” part of the
hourglass, from 800 to 900 West and from Redwood Road to 2200 West - have more demand
for traffic coming on and off the freeways to Redwood Road and 900 West and so will adopt
Concept 1’s 5-lane cross section with multi-modal improvements such as a buffered bike lane,
curb extension “bulb-outs,” pedestrian refuges, and streetscape.
• The viaduct/I-15 interchange segment of the corridor will adopt the Concept 2 approach, with a
widened path, improved freeway ramp crossings and buffers, as well as an improved active
transportation crossing at 800 West, although the Concept 3 north side path could be
considered as a future phase.
We believe this corridor concept best balances and achieves the Corridor Goals established by the
Stakeholder Committee and creates a transportation and public space investment worthy of the
communities it will serve.
The following discusses these segments in more detail.
8 DRAFT July 14, 2021
900 West to 1500 West
• Reconfigured lanes to one through lane each direction
• Median with turn pockets at intersections - but with center path (1200 West to 1500 West) and
two rows of trees, street furniture and pedestrian scale lighting, with pedestrian refuge and
crossing at path, making median occupiable/usable space.
• Where the median meets intersections, consider raising the intersection between the median
segments halfway to the curb to create a calmer area to mitigate potential conflicts.
• A goal to protect the bike lane as much as feasible, and in balance with the residential driveways
and on-street parking, where currently existing. This can be a block-by-block solution that can be
largely protected by a vertical curb element from 1200 West to 1500 West, where no parking
exists, and potentially protected for some blocks from 900 West to 1200 West, particularly at the
1100-1200 West block with civic/commercial frontage and some blocks on the south side of 600
North with side on residential and few driveways. For the remaining blocks, a buffered bike lane
(on traffic side and parking side) would be employed, similar to some segments of the 300 South
protected bike lane.
• Bus stops in park strips at 900 West, 1000 West, 1200 West, 1300 West and 1400 West.
• For stops slated for 1300 West and 1400 West, we propose a bike bypass – a ramp from the
bike lane up to the sidewalk, which would become a short shared pathway going behind or in
front of the bus passenger waiting area and back down on the far side of the stop, giving the bus
a place to pull out. When there is no bus occupying the pull out, a cyclist can make the choice to
keep riding through the pull out.
• Preserve parking where existing, for the most part, the exception potentially being some
stretches where residences side-on to the roadway and a protected bike lane could be
implemented.
• Bulb-outs into the parking lane where they exist on both 600/700 North and cross streets.
• 1300 West is a planned Neighborhood Byway – here, the median could continue across the
intersection, reducing through traffic on this street and making it easter for active travelers to
cross 600 North.
1500 West to Redwood Road (Backman School/Riverside Park segment)
• Reconfigure 1500 West and Riverside Park Drives to align, with plazas on all four corners and
crossings of 600/700 North, creating a gateway to the neighborhoods, the park, and school.
• Center turn lane, though can consider medians at pedestrian crossings.
9 DRAFT July 14, 2021
• Parallel parking on both sides.
• Raised bike lanes behind parking alongside sidewalk to west side of bridge.
• Between the Jordan bridge and Redwood Road, we propose either a raised bike lane alongside
the sidewalk or a shared pathway on both sides for cyclists and pedestrians to share – due to
the need to protect cyclists within the limited right-of-way, and as the roadway transitions back
to a 5-lane section.
• Consider new, more permeable park edge along 600/700 North, replacing chain link fence.
• Consider new system of connected drives in the park offering on-street parking spaces.
Redwood Road to I-215/2200 West
A modified version of Concept 1 with:
• 5 lanes (two lanes each way and a center turn lane)
• Curb-protected bike lanes on north side (where no parking and very few driveways); curb-
protected bike lanes replacing parking on south side.
• New pedestrian crossings at Morton and Sir Anthony Drives.
• Intermittent medians breaking up the wide pavement and providing pedestrian refuges for the
new crossings.
• Curb extension bulb-outs where there is a parking lane.
Viaduct/I-15 interchange
Continue working with UDOT to make modifications include:
• Widened path/sidewalk with upgraded curb ramps and crosswalk signals.
• Painted on-street bike lanes.
• Modify eastbound right turn lane to interchange with more abrupt turn angle.
• Reduce NB-to-EB curve to manage high vehicle speed.
• Consider Alternative Concept 3’s north side pathway as a future phase
Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
POLICY QUESTIONS:
1. $300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may wish to
discuss if the proposed bond funding by category (listed below) aligns with the Council’s policy
priorities. The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ Million unfunded
capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new assets.
The Council is scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also reviewing
individual CIP projects.
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
2. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for CIP – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to review all CIP applications for FY22 to determine which, if any project, are eligible for
ARPA funding. The U.S. Treasury release eligibility guidance after the advisory board and Mayor
provided project funding recommendations to the Council. A review for ARPA feasibility could be
completed in time for the Council’s July and August project-specific funding deliberations.
ARPA Funding
• CIP FY21
o The general purpose appropriation for street reconstructions
o Rehabilitation of bridges over the Jordan River at 400 S and 650 N
• CIP FY22
o The general purpose appropriation for street reconstructions
o 200 South transit complete street
• Projects with Drainage and Stormwater Improvement Expenses
o 100 South
o 300 West
o 900 East
o 900 South
o Local Streets #1
o Local Streets #2
o 200 South (FY22)
o 900 South (FY22)
o Local Streets Projects (FY22)
• Bridges
o 650 North
Damaged by earthquake and application submitted to UDOT for $5.6M
o 400 South
Rehabilitation cost estimated at $2.8M
3. Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide policy guidance on disqualifying an
application such as if it violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy document,
if the primary beneficiary would not be the public, if the City should no longer allow constituent street
reconstruction applications because the City’s chosen strategy is reconstructing the worst first based on a
data-driven process, etc.
The Administration would greatly appreciate policy guidance from Council that establishes an agreeable
allowance for CIP staff to disqualify applications that are not within the required funding amounts, are in
Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
violation of a City code, or if an application violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or
other policy document.
The Administration would also request Council allowance to phase out constituent applications for street
reconstructions as City staff have developed an equitable and data-driven approach to these improvements.
4. Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for
neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest in
being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates. Some
constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some projects
get more support from departments than others.
The CIP team is in the process of uploading all projects to a centralized database. We anticipate this will
be completed within the next 60 days. We request the opportunity to provide an analysis to Council of the
funding allocated by various Council districts, zip codes, neighborhoods, or other relevant demographic
information.
Following this analysis, CIP staff would like to hold community meetings in areas with the least funding
awarded to provide hands-on, pre-submission workshops in multiple languages.
The CIP Team is proposing a new “CIP Collaborative” that will offer high level assistance with division
staff and education about the CIP and its application process. This initiative would include engagement
components such as:
o CIP Handouts/Brochures (English & Spanish) available at the City’s libraries and other public
buildings and distributed to Community Councils (Liaisons) that provide the CIP details and
appropriate contact information for inquiries
o “CIP Collaborative” meeting(s) held sometime in July or August of each year that give
constituents an opportunity for facetime with the appropriate City division for a Q&A session and
to educate and develop a feasible project scope for their application prior to submission deadlines
o Broadening of the Constituent application timeline to allow more time for collaboration and
submission
o Regular communication with all Community Council Liaisons to ensure transparency of the CIP
process and any updates
o Staff attendance at Community Council Meetings (as requested) to educate and inform
Constituents on CIP criteria and the process to apply
Note: The intention in broadening the constituent timeline and adding an engagement element is to give
staff more time to assist the applicants, not to discourage submissions but rather, encourage complete and
feasible project scopes that meet the CIP eligibility criteria.
5. Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of Surplus Land Fund – The
Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to advance this legislative intent. The Council
may also wish to ask the Administration what challenges exist to provide an accounting of vacant
building maintenance costs and whether a property management contract approach could be more
efficient. See Additional Info section for more on the Surplus Land Fund. In Budget Amendment #1 of
FY20 the Council adopted the following legislative intent:
The Council expresses the intent to fund ongoing property maintenance expenses out of the Public
Services Department and/or Community and Neighborhoods Departments’ (CAN) budget rather than
Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
continuing to use one-time revenues from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the
Administration include this approach based on actual expenses in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget
for FY2021. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift funding for a CIP-related
FTE away from the Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget.
Full building maintenance costs are different than basic measures taken to preserve a vacant building in its
current condition until it can be developed, improved, or disposed of. Public Services has performed basic
measures only, and these costs are difficult to quantify because they comprise call-back, overtime, and lost
productivity time in addition to materials and supplies. Facilities bills CAN for some of its expenses, but
personnel costs cannot be billed. Most of the expense paid by CAN for FY21 was for security services to
patrol and respond to break-ins. Public Services is preparing asset stabilization plans for each vacant
property (Warm Springs, Fisher Mansion, Fleet Block, Old PSB, Glendale Water Park). Plans will include
immediate measures Facilities can take to mitigate and repair damages. Some funding for stabilization is
included in the proposed bond that will hopefully prevent further asset degradation. We are also continuing
to investigate contracted property management companies that will perform the basic work currently done
by Facilities and respond to after-hours calls from the alarm systems if they are workable. When final
plans are prepared, they will include recommendations for funding and possible outsourcing. If the long-
term management of these buildings is shifted to the Facilities portfolio, FTE’s will be required.
CAN has also recently kicked off a Community Land Trust study that will contemplate the structure and
governance of a third-party entity that provides profession asset and portfolio management over agreed
upon City properties.
6. CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to
facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety of
mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic by topic email requests to consolidated monthly
Page | 6 reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested
constituents.
The CIP team is in the process of uploading all projects to a centralized database. We anticipate this will
be completed within the next 60 days.
7. Additional 0.20% County Sales Tax for Transit Option (not currently collected/levied) – The State
Legislature authorized this optional county sales tax for transit capital improvements and services. The
Council may wish to ask the Administration about any discussions with the County or plans
regarding this potential funding source. For example, could partnering with the County help implement
the City’s Transit Master Plan, downtown TRAX loop and/or undergrounding railway lines that divide
the City? Under current state law, the option to enact the additional sales tax expires at the end of FY23.
Transportation coordinates regularly with the County on funding opportunities. So far, we haven’t heard
much interest from the County on levying this tax. The Division will continue to push Salt Lake City
projects forward with both UTA and the County so that they are well positioned for potential new revenue
sources like this one.
8. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update
on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes
capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing in
January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals, metrics,
and requests.
Attachment 12 – Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
9. Balancing Funding for Streets and Transportation – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how to balance funding for streets and transportation in coming years between Class C
funds which goes to street reconstructions and overlays with the new County 1/4¢ sales tax which goes to
transportation. Both of those funding sources are eligible for streets and transportation uses but are only
going to one of the two uses. There may be a need for greater ongoing streets funding when the
voter-approved 2018 Streets Reconstruction Bond funds are all spent.
The needs for both street reconstruction and multi-modal transportation projects far exceed the funding
available from these two sources. While it may appear that these two funding sources are spent
independently, they are often blended on projects to ensure that reconstruction projects include the full
suite of complete streets elements. Transportation will continue to collaborate to ensure further integration
in future years.
Engineering ran an analysis using Cartegraph that determined we would need an additional $20 million
per year just to get back to an overall average OCI score of fair condition. The Division is currently
working to refine this analysis so it can be presented to Council/Administration in the next 6 months.
Attachment 13 - Qualified Census Tracts for 2021 from HUD
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
BUDGET UPDATE
Learn more about funds spent at www.tinyurl.com/SLCBudgetFY21
AUGUST 17, 2021
Balancing Our Priorities
Funds Spent by Department
DEADLINE TO SPEND ONE-TIME ARPA FUNDS: DECEMBER 2024
Some ARPA-Eligible Spending Options
As suggested/asked by Council Members
1
Policy Questions
How much should we reserve for FY23?
Should we use ARPA for CIP/Bond to
preserve bond capacity/fund balance?
How do we balance one-time projects with
ongoing people and program expenses?
What are our unmet community needs?
What have we heard from the community?
*When will we revisit the $1.5 million
holding account from 10 ARPA-ineligible
administration funding requests?
1
2
3
4
5
6
3
FY23 Estimated
Funding Needs
$36 million
Ongoing expenses on
employees & programs
(e.g. police salaries, YouthCity,
10 new FTEs) and larger
revenue loss replacement
**Could be funded using other
sources; final amount TBD
2
General Fund Balance
Reimbursement
$3 million
$1 million
for small business loans
$2 million
for low-income senior
and veteran housing
Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
$6+ million
Improve outdoor spaces
$500,000
to repair the Annex Building
(Odyssey House application #3)
Improve drainage on streets
4
Sales Tax
Bond
$5.2 million
Improve outdoor spaces
Holding account* (1.9%)
$1,583,500
FY23 estimated funding needs** (42.1%)
$36,000,000
Financial Overview
$85,411,572
$22,555,258
Total funds
Funds spent (26.4%)Funds remaining (71.7%)
50.7%
Revenue
Replacement
(General
Fund)
37.7%
Police
(Ocer
existing
salaries)
Apprenticeship Program
(Multiple Departments)
Community &
Neighborhoods
Economic
Development
Finance
Fire
4.4%
4%
1.5%
0.9%
0.8%
$61,272,814
Remainder (29.6%)
$25,272,814
Revenue Replacement for the General Fund
Police Ocer Salary Increases
Apprenticeship Program
Youth & Family COVID-19 Programming Continuation
Economic Development Sta (2 New FTEs)
Medical Response Team Expansion (4 New FTEs funded for 6 Months)
ARPA Grant Administrator (1 New FTE Sunsets with ARPA Funding)
ARPA Grant Manager (1 New FTE Sunsets with ARPA Funding)
Community & Neighborhoods Special Projects Assistant (1 New FTE)
Youth & Family Community & Program Manager (1 New FTE)
Economic Development Strategic Plan
Medical Response Team Equipment for Expansion
Total ARPA Funds Spent
98.7% spent on ongoing expenses
4% spent on 10 New FTEs
$11,432,646
$8,507,318
$1,000,000
$711,350
$290,000
$136,762
$101,020
$95,000
$93,829
$90,633
$50,000
$46,700
$22,555,258
$22,262,538
$807,244
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Arts Council Sta (3 FTEs), Operational Costs TBD
Associate Planners (3 FTEs)
Forest Preservation & Growth (1 FTE), Operational Costs TBD
Small Business Construction Mitigation Pilot Program
Transportation Right of Way Utilization Manager (1 FTE)
Business & Cultural Districts (1 FTE)
Forest Preservation & Growth Program Equipment & Supplies (one-time)
Business Analyst (1 FTE)
Tech Lake City
American Express Card Merchant Fees
Holding Account
78% of holding account proposed for 10 FTEs and merchant fees (ongoing expenses)
$350,000
$235,000
$219,000
$200,000
$160,000
$150,000
$95,000
$89,500
$45,000
$40,000
$1,583,500
$1,243,500
ARPA-Funded Projects
Holding Account Proposals
650 North Bridge Replacement (partially ARPA eligible)
Damaged from March 2020 earthquake. The Administration applied to UDOT for replacement funding.
200 South Reconstruction and Transit Complete Streets (15% eligible)
For drainage, curb, and gutter.
9-Line Asphalt Pump Track
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways (100% eligible)
Odyssey House (100% eligible)
Three Creeks West Bank Trailway (100% eligible)
Street Improvements (15% eligible)
For drainage, curb, and gutter. Total estimated cost - $3 million.
Poplar Grove Sportcourt (100% eligible)
900 South Reconstruction and Signal Improvements
For drainage, curb, and gutter.
Three Creeks West Bank New Park (100% eligible)
Downtown Green Loop (partially eligible)
All of project may not be entirely eligible in a qualified census tract
West Side Neighborhood Parks (partially eligible)
TBD until more details are available.
Public Lands Multilingual Wayfinding Signage (partially eligible)
TBD until more details are available.
ARPA-Eligible CIP & Bond Projects
CIP
Bond
$5,600,000
$1,800,000
$615,777
$510,000
$500,000
$484,146
$450,000
$433,333
$375,000
$150,736
$4,000,000
$1,200,000
$16,118,992
$10,918,992
$5,200,000
ARPA-Eligible CIP & Bond Projects
= ongoing expense
CI
P
Bo
n
d
CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
FY 2021-22 PROJECTS OVERVIEW A-1
FY 2021-22 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY A-2
DEBT SERVICE CIP
DEBT SERVICE CIP B-1
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND B-4
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER FUNDS B-5
GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS C-1
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS D-1
ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS E-1
GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS E-17
PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS E-21
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS E-41
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDEDCIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Capital Improvement Program Overview
Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning program of capital
expenditures needed to replace or expand the City’s public infrastructure. Two elements guide the City in
determining the annual schedule of infrastructure improvements and budgets. This includes the current
fiscal year's capital budget.
Salt Lake City’s FY 2021-22 budget appropriates $703,068,753 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class “C”
Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other public and private
funds. The Salt Lake City Council considers their input in determining which projects will be
recommended for funding in this budget. The Enterprise Fund recommendations are consistent with
each respective business plan. These plans were developed in cooperation with the respective advisory
boards and endorsed by the Administration. The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City fund
recommendations are consistent with Board policy. All grant-related CIP recommendations are
consistent with applicable federal guidelines and endorsed by the Administration.
Capital Improvement Program Book (CIP Book)
Salt Lake City’s FY2021-22 budget presents all CIP projects in its own document, the CIP book. By creating
and providing City Council a CIP book the City believes it will provide more clarity and transparency
regarding the recommended capital improvement projects. Major General Fund projects Transportation
Infrastructure, Local Street Reconstruction, ADA Improvements and Sidewalk Rehabilitation for the
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and capital improvement of deteriorated streets city-wide, total
appropriation of $11,090,091 is proposed. Of this amount the budget appropriates $3,653,052 general
fund, $2,046,329 of Class “C” fund, $4,900,000 transportation tax, and 491,520 of Impact Fee funds.
Projects include traffic signal upgrades, transportation safety improvements, and pedestrian and
neighborhood byway enhancements.
Parks, Trails and Open Space Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement proposed budget
includes a total appropriation of $7,786,889 from various funding sources. Projects include various
improvements in Jordan Park, Pioneer Park, RAC, Poplar Park, Three Creeks, Sugar House, Glendale Water
park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park. Liberty Park, Pioneer Park, Warm Springs Park, Memory Grove Park,
Poplar Park, Taufer Park, Cottonwood Park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park.
Public Facilities Public Facilities' capital improvement proposed budget includes a total appropriation of
$1,252,230 is for improvements a Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program to retire deferred capital
replacement projects that are long overdue.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-1
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Debt Service Projects
Sales Tax Series 2012A Bond 333,514 333,514
Sales Tax Series 2013B Bond 530,801 530,801
Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond 744,951 744,951
Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond 2,009,296 2,009,296
Sales Tax Series 2019 A Bond 366,151 366,151
Sales Tax Series 2022 Bond 3,657,667 3,657,667
B & C Roads Series 2014 975,377 975,377
ESCO Debt Service to Bond 896,500 896,500
ESCO Steiner Debt Service 0
ESCO Parks Debt Service 0
Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233
Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900
Debt Service Projects Total 8,538,880 0 975,377 984,133 0 0 10,498,390
On
g
o
i
n
g
Ongoing Projects
Crime Lab 560,869 560,869
Facilities Maintenance 350,000 350,000
Parks Maintenance 250,000 250,000
Ongoing Projects Total 1,160,869 0 0 0 0 0 1,160,869
Ot
h
e
r
On
g
o
i
n
g
Other Ongoing
Community and Neighborhoods - Surplus Land RES 200,000 200,000
Public Services- Smiths Ballfield 154,000 154,000
Public Services- ESCO County Steiner 148,505 148,505
Public Services - Memorial House 68,554 68,554
Other Ongoing 0 0 0 0 0 571,059 571,059
Maintenance Funded Projects
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Multimodal Street Maintenance 200,000 200,000
Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 21,429 278,571 300,000
Trails Maintenance 200,000 200,000
Maintenance Funded Projects Total 21,429 278,571 0 0 400,000 0 700,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-2
Ne
w
CI
P
New/Maintenance Projects Total
Kensington Byway Ballpark 500,000 500,000
400 South Viaduct Trail 310,000 90,000 500,000 900,000
1700 South Corridor Transformation 317,792 35,300 353,092
A Place for Everyone: Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 416,667 416,667
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component 3,200,000 3,200,000
Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 400,000 444,400
Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 75,000 675,000 750,000
Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000 85,000
Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 6,223 312,056 318,279
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736
900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 172,000 200,000
Pavement Conditions Survey 3,571 171,429 175,000
Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 349,026 84,307 433,333
Urban Trails 6,500 1,038,500 1,045,000
Three Creeks West Bank Trailway 484,146 484,146
Area Studies 201,000 201,000
Single Family/Fire Behavior Prop 374,864 374,864
200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 415,800 453,222
Local Link Construction 50,000 450,000 500,000
Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion Remove and Replace 183,834 183,834
Liberty Park Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 354,167 354,167
Liberty Park Basketball Court 99,680 99,680
Neighborhood Byways 104,500 940,500 1,045,000
Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000 70,000
700 South Westside Road Configuration 223,450 291,000 514,450
900 South Signal Improvements 96,500 233,500 70,000 100,000 500,000
Corridor Transformations 25,398 282,200 307,598
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-3
Ne
w
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000
SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682
Odyssey House Annex Facility Renovation 300,000 300,000
Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000
Street Improvements 2021/2022 2,046,329 2,046,329
Tracy Aviary Historic Structure Renovations 51,700 104,378 156,078
Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000
Capital Asset Replacement Program 1,252,230 1,252,230
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032
New Projects Total 4,249,391 3,176,129 2,046,329 7,291,970 4,500,000 0 21,263,819
Cost Overrun 88,514 71,600 160,114
Percent for Art 66,386 53,700 120,086
Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/CDBG Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects.
14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 571,059 34,474,337
Other Capital Improvement Programs
CD
B
G
City Infrastructure Projects ( CIP Engineering/Transportation)
SLC Transportation-route 4 Frequent Transit Route 322,000 322,000
Total CDBG 322,000 322,000
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Airport CIP Projects
Pump House #5 Renovations 928,000 928,000
Pump Station & Diversion Valve 1,300,000 1,300,000
Gate 39 Reconstruction 165,000 165,000
North Cargo Apron Development 25,605,000 25,605,000
Taxiway F Reconstruction 580,000 580,000
Taxiway P, N, & H3 Pavement 1,620,000 1,620,000
Taxiway Q Pavement Rehabilitation 1,646,000 1,646,000
Bureau of Land Management Access Road 1,660,000 1,660,000
Bureau of Land Management Apron 2,731,000 2,731,000
Landside Lighting Wire Replacement 1,566,000 1,566,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-4
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
(C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 219,500 219,500
Roadway Entrance feature and Landscape 250,000 250,000
GA Zone 3 Corporate Hangar Site Develop 1,205,000 1,205,000
Terminal Redevelopment Program 164,849,000 164,849,000
North Concourse Program 186,614,000 186,614,000
Total Airport CIP Projects 390,938,500 390,938,500
Go
l
f
Golf CIP Projects
Maintenance Equipment 257,575 257,575
Range Improvements 177,836 177,836
Tee Box Leveling 60,000 60,000
Total Golf CIP Projects 495,411 495,411
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Public Utilities CIP Projects
Water Main Replacements 18,019,000 18,019,000
Treatment Plant Improvements 7,350,000 7,350,000
Deep Pump Wells 1,630,000 1,630,000
Meter Chang-Out Programs 2,500,000 2,500,000
Water Service Connections 2,950,000 2,950,000
Reservoirs 1,650,000 1,650,000
Pumping Plants and Pump Houses 1,550,000 1,550,000
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 1,533,000 1,533,000
Distribution Reservoirs 2,350,000 2,350,000
Landscaping 68,000 68,000
Treatment Plants 191,045,826 191,045,826
Collection Lines 32,405,000 32,405,000
Lift Stations 2,685,000 2,685,000
Storm Drain Lines 7,362,500 7,362,500
Riparian Corridor Improvements 250,000 250,000
Detention Basins 50,000 50,000
Landscaping 168,000 168,000
Storm Water Lift Stations 700,000 700,000
Street Lighting Projects 2,240,000 2,240,000
Total Public Utilities CIP Projects 276,506,326 276,506,326
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-5
RD
A
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects
Station Center Infrastructure 332,179 332,179
Total RDA CIP Projects 332,179 332,179
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
il
i
t
y
Total Sustainability CIP Projects
No Projects 0
Total Sustainability CIP Projects 0 0
Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP 668,594,416 668,272,416
GRAND TOTAL 14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 669,165,475 703,068,753
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-6
Salt Lake City
Impact Fee Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT Parks Impact Fee Streets Impact Fee Police Impact Fee Fire Impact Fee TOTAL
Im
p
a
c
t
Fe
e
s
Impact Fee Projects
Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233
Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900
400 South Viaduct Trail 90000 90,000
1700 South Corridor Transformation 35,300 35,300
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component
3,200,000 3,200,000
Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 44,400
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736
900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 28,000
Urban Trails 6,500 6,500
200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 37,422
Local Link Construction 50,000 50,000
Neighborhood Byways 104,500 104,500
900 South Signal Improvements 70,000 70,000
Corridor Transformations 25,398 25,398
SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000
SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682
Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000
Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032
Total Impact Fee by Type 6,800,450 491,520 — 984,133 8,276,103
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-7
Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects FY 2022
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Fund Impact Fee Total
Un
f
u
n
d
ed
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Constituent 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 3000 S Highland Dr to 1500 E 449,315 449,315
Engineering Logan Ave Reconstruction Logan Avenue from 1700 East to 2000 East and 2000 East from 1700 South to Bryan Avenue
1,405,000 1,405,000
Engineering Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River)200 South over Jordan River (Approx. 1220 West 200 South)
3,500,000 3,500,000
Engineering Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over Jordan River)
400 South & 650 North over Jordan River 3,000,000 3,000,000
Engineering Wingpointe Levee Design Jordan River Surplus Canal between 3700 West North Temple Drive and Terminal Drive
800,000 800,000
Constituent Three Creeks West Bank Roadways 1300 S. 1000 W.1,158,422 1,158,422
Facilities Delong Salt Storage 719 S Delong St 1,504,427 1,504,427
Facilities Steam Bay 1910 West 500 South 363,495 363,495
Fire Mixed-Use Three Story Prop 1600 South Industrial Rd.815,895 815,895
Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 1600 South Industrial Rd.694,785 694,785
Constituent Sunnyside Park Sidewalk Valdez Drive 72,740 72,740
Constituent Winner on Wasatch Dee Glan Tennis Court Construction
1216 S. Wasatch Drive 500,000 500,000
Constituent Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center
1105 S Constitution Dr.202,100 202,100
Constituent Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Court Resurfacing
1105 S Constitution Dr.300,000 300,000
Constituent Harrison Ave and 700 E Community Garden 1300 S. 700 E.103,500 103,500
Constituent 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 1300 South between Main and West Temple 100,000 100,000
Constituent Wingate Walkway 475 N. Redwood Road 286,750 286,750
Constituent 1200 East Median 1200 East bet. So. Temple & 200 S. and 300 S & 500 S.500,000 500,000
Parks & Public Lands Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation
2740 South 2700 East 765,325 765,325
Parks & Public Lands Enhancement of the Cemetery for Visitor Research and Knowledge
200 N Street 790,000 790,000
Parks & Public Lands Cemetery Roadway Improvements, Phase 1 200 N Street 3,838,000 3,838,000
Parks & Public Lands 9Line and Rose Park Asphalt Pump Tracks 700 West 900 South & 900 North Cornell Avenue 1,393,600 1,393,600
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-8
Un
f
u
n
d
ed
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Parks & Public Lands Richmond Park Playground and Park improvements
440 East 600 South 690,000 690,000
Parks & Public Lands Library Square Feasibility, Civic Engagement and Design Development
Block 37, bounded by 400 South, 300 East, 500 South and 200 East
225,000 225,000
Parks & Public Lands Donner & Rotary Glen Park Community Park Irrigation & Landscape Design and Construction
2850 East Sunnyside & 2903 E Kennedy Drive 650,000 650,000
Constituent Capitol Hill Traffic Calming Various 595,194 595,194
Constituent Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction
Harvard Ave bet. 1300 & 1500 East 1,311,920 1,311,920
Constituent Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues (600 East to 700 East) and 600 East (Kensington Ave to 1700 South)
400,000 400,000
Constituent Stratford Bike Crossing 1700 E. Stratford 200,000 200,000
Constituent Sugar House Safe Side Streets 900 East on the west, 2100 South on the south, 1100 East on the east, and Garfield Avenue on the north
500,000 500,000
Transportation Sunnyside 9Line Trail Missing Piece 1805 to 1851 East Sunnyside Avenue.350,000 350,000
Transportation Multimodal Intersections & Signals Various 945,000 105,000 1,050,000
Total Unfunded CIP Projects 27,016,868 1,498,600 28,515,468
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-9
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
A-10
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$333,514 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
June 2012 10/1/2032 RDA
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of constructing
and improving various City roads, including the replacement of the North Temple Viaduct and improving North
Temple Boulevard. The bonds were issued with a par amount of $15,855,000. As of June 30, 2021,
$10,845,000 in principal remains outstanding.
The debt service is currently mostly funded by tax increment revenue from the RDA. General Fund pays debt
service when the tax increment revenue does not fully cover the debt service.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The Series
2012A bonds mature on October 1, 2032.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$530,801 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
November 2013 10-01-2033 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of
financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar, and to pay for a portion of various improvements to
create a “greenway” within the corridor. The total par amount of bonds issued was $7,315,000. As of June 30,
2021, $5,470,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2033.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$744,951 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
September 2014 10-01-2034 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of
acquiring, constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property and roads.
The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of $10,935,000. As of June 30, 2021, $8,430,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2034.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-1
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$2,009,296 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
June 2016 10-01-2028 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of
the Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the
acquisition, construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building
for use as City offices and other capital improvements within the City.
Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on
the Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $21,715,000. The refunding resulted in a net present
value savings of $2,363,890.47 for the City. As of June 30 2021, $17,910,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds
mature on October 1, 2028.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$366,151 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
December 2019 04-01-2027 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in December 2019 to refund a
portion of the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX
Extension to the Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown.
The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of $2,620,000. The refunding resulted in a net present
value savings of $299,661 for the City. As of June 30, 2021, $2,095,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
April 1, 2027.
Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$975,377 Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
August 2014 04-01-2024 Class C
The Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014, were issued in August 2014 for the purpose of
constructing and repairing 13th South Street from State Street to 4th West, and from State Street to 5th West,
and 17th South Street from State Street to 700 East.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-2
The Series 2014 bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,800,000. As of June 30, 2021, $2,820,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on April 1, 2024.
ESCO Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$82,850 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund
This lease provides energy efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division.
ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$148,505 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County
$148,505 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for Steiner. Since the costs
of this facility is shared 50% with the County, the County pays 50% of this lease payment.
ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$517,200 Capital Lease August 2012 March 2026 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for city parks.
Crime Lab Improvements Capital Lease Debt
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$118,300 Capital Lease March 2015 September 2021 General Fund
This capital lease provided the funding for the improvements to the leased space for the Crime Evidence Lab.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$500,900 LBA Lease Revenue
Bonds
March 2016 04-15-2037 Impact Fees
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series
2016A in March 2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14
Project.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $6,755,000. As of June 30, 2021, $5,755,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-3
Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds
mature on April 15, 2037.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
2022 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$483,233 LBA Lease Revenue
Bonds
April 2017 04-15-2038 Impact Fees
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
in April 2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project.
The Series 2017A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,115,000. As of June 30, 2021, $7,555,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND
Crime Lab Rental Payments
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$560,869 General Fund
Yearly Rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab
Facilities Maintenance
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$350,000 General Fund
The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop
problems early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City’s building
stock.
Parks Maintenance
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$250,000 General Fund
The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop
problems early on and prevent larger failures in the City’s park stock.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-4
Percent for Art
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$120,086 General Fund
To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures and other works of art. (1% of CIP)
Cost overrun
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$160,114 General Fund
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER SOURCES
Smith Ballfield Naming Rights
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$156,000 Other -Donations
Two parts to this request - to establish budget within the 83 fund to accept the revenue received for the naming
rights pertaining to Smith Baseball Field and to establish an expense within the 83 fund to continue addressing
the deferred maintenance backlog in this facility. This building was completed in 1990 and is now 27 yrs. old.
CIP Memorial House
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$68,554 Other - Rental
A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation.
Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the
use of the funding is to be determined.
Real Estate Services – Surplus Land
2022 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$200,000 Other – Surplus
Land
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-5
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B
2021 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
Don’t need for CIP Sales Tax Rev
Bonds
October 2019 04-01-20 RDA
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the
purpose of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a performing arts center and
related improvements. The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B.
The RDA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the RDA is unable
to pay any of the debt service, the City’s General Fund would be responsible for it.
The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. The refunding resulted in a net present value savings of
$6,396,905. As of June 30, 2021, $57,740,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1 beginning in 2020. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1.
The bonds mature on April 1, 2038.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEBT SERVICE CIP
B-6
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-1
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-2
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
C-3
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-1
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-2
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-3
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-4
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-5
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-6
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-7
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-8
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-9
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-10
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-11
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-12
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-13
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-14
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-15
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-16
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-17
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-18
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-19
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-20
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-21
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-22
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-23
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-24
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-25
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-26
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-27
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-28
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-29
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-30
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-31
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-32
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-33
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-34
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-35
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-36
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-37
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-38
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
D-39
The Department of Airports
The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any
general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of
Airports has 610.8 full-time employee positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and
promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel
experience.
The Fiscal Year 2022 budget continues to show financial impacts due to COVID-19. The Salt Lake City
International Airport, along with all other airports in the U.S. and abroad, has been acutely impacted by
the broad-based economic shutdown resulting from efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including
reductions in flights and declines in passenger volumes. The Airport continues to look for ways to control
costs and provide airline and concession relief through the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) grant as well as the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation ACT
(CRRSAA) grant. These grants will offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing
fee and terminal rents charged in FY22. While the American Rescue Plan has been passed, no allocations
or awards have been made at this time and are not reflected in the Airports FY22 budget. While
passenger demand continues to increase on a monthly basis, the Department of Airports will act
prudently in managing the FY22 budget and look for ways to continue to save operating and capital
expenses where feasible and look for ways to strengthen our revenues.
The developed FY22 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits while facing challenges of
decreased passengers and revenues. The Department of Airports will continue to fund important capital
projects while deferring non-critical projects to preserve cash and liquidity. These projects include the
Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which will improve
ongoing operations, create jobs, and provide economic stimulus to the City’s and State’s economy.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-1
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-2
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-3
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-4
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-5
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-6
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-7
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-8
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-9
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-10
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-11
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-12
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-13
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-14
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-15
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-16
The Salt Lake City Golf Division
The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality
recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding
cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess
revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have
limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund
was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward
building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds have not been
released for use as the fund balance has been needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund
deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division has proposed increasing the Golf CIP Fund
from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the
Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. The projected increase
for the final six months of FY22 from the proposed increase is $124,800.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will
be using $257,575 in FY 2022 to purchase additional, mostly used equipment (lease-return equipment
from high-end private courses).
The Golf Division will be focusing on making improvements to the driving ranges and practice areas
located at five of our six locations and have allocated $177,866 from the Golf CIP Fund for solid-surface
hitting stations with artificial turf hitting mats along with new dispensers/washers.
The Golf Division will be undergoing a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling
a number of tee boxes at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY22 from the Golf CIP Fund for
materials and equipment rentals.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-17
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-18
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-19
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-20
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities, water, sewer, storm water,
and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund
these activities. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue
bonds, and occasionally a grant. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation
Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the
services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were
developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these
assets requires long term project and financial planning.
The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In fiscal year
2022, the department has over 150 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on
existing projects. Some planned capital improvement projects initially anticipated for FY2021 were
deferred and reprioritized to FY2022 and beyond. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in
the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the
largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging
problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment
plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Alternatives from a recently completed condition
assessment for all three plants are being evaluated. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that
Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water
rights and exchange agreement obligations.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-21
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-22
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-23
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-24
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-25
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-26
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-27
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-28
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-29
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-30
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-31
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-32
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-33
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-34
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-35
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-36
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-37
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-38
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-39
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-40
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency
The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) works to revitalize neighborhoods and commercial
districts that experience disinvestment. The RDA utilizes a powerful set of financial, planning, and
revitalization tools to support redevelopment projects that encourage economic investment, assist in the
housing for low-and moderate-income households, and help implement Salt Lake City’s Master Plan. The
RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income
revenue, depending on the specific budget account.
The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned
infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that
anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval
process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects
costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the
City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA fiscal year 2022 budget proposes only one
potential City public infrastructure project. The Station Center infrastructure project is an allocation for
the construction and upgrading of utilities and infrastructure surrounding the Agency’s properties in the
Depot District. This project is currently being designed in conjunction with the City’s Transportation and
Engineering Departments.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-41
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
E-42
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: August 17, 2021
RE: Text amendment: Fence, Wall and
Hedge Height
PLNPCM2020-00511
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing August 17, 2021
Set Date: August 17, 2021
Public Hearing: Sept 7, 2021
Potential Action: Sept 21, 2021
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning ordinance
regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences and define
instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right. If approved, the Planning
Commission or Historic Landmark Commission will be able to modify fence, wall, or hedge height as
part of their approval of a use application in order to mitigate impacts according to the approval
standards for the applicable land use application, such as the conditional use process.
The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards
and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards for all zoning districts, except for a few specific instances such
as:
•When a residential district abuts a nonresidential district
•Manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts
•Public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public
safety
•Private game courts
•Temporary construction fencing
•Decorative pillars and arches.
The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Page | 2
Policy Questions
• The draft ordinance would allow fences or walls to exceed maximum height regulation for
Public Utility Facilities when the fence or wall is necessary to restrict access and promote
safety of public utility buildings or structures, provided that the portion of the fence or wall
which exceeds a height of 6 feet is at least 80% transparent. In no event, shall the fence or wall
securing a public utility building or structure exceed 12 feet in height.
When the City added a taller fence in the front yard setback of the City owned buildings on the
southeast corner of 600 South and 200 East, the Council received some negative constituent
feedback about it, particularly with regard to the height.
The Council may wish to ask the administration to explain what
circumstances are considered necessary to restrict access and promote safety
of public, and if those standards can be further defined to increase
predictability for the public.
The Council may also wish to ask for more specificity with regard to over-
height fences adjacent to athletic fields.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Ordinance Changes Since Planning Commission Approval:
Following the recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission the Attorney’s Office created
the Ordinance. During their review a few minor details in the proposed amendment were modified
due to legal, grammatical and technical issues that were identified:
• Removed authority of Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission
(21A.210.E.4.i) to modify fence height through any land use application. The Attorney’s Office
noted that a Conditional Use process is the only process with direct standards that could be
tied to fence height. Please note that fence height can still be modified through the Planned
Development process.
•Clarified when fences tied to private recreational activities may receive additional height
(21A.210.E.4.d).
•Made minor edits throughout to text and definitions to provide clarity. Substance and meaning
of the proposal did not change.
Page | 3
Key Issues
Pages 3-5 of the Planning Commission staff reports includes a summary of four key issues identified
by the Planning Staff. A short summary of those is provided below. See the planning commission staff
report to view the full analysis.
•Consistency & Clarity
The over height fence special exception results in an unpredictable development patterns, as
well as unpredictable expectations for applicants. Often, applicants assume that the act of
applying equals approval and are confused when it is denied.
Planning Staff believes it is rare for an over height fence to be approved in the front yard. As
such, if applications are routinely denied or discouraged, then the ordinance should not
provide an exception.
•Staff & City Resources
The Fence Height Text Amendment is being reviewed separately from a larger application to
remove all special exceptions. The Council was briefed on the special exception amendments
on July 20, the public hearing in set for August 17
The purpose of the special exception amendments is to simplify the zoning ordinance by
updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions, reallocate staff resources away from
processing land use applications that favor individual properties and toward updating overall
zoning codes to align with adopted master plans, increase predictability and reduce neighbor
conflicts that are created by requests for exceptions to the zoning regulations for single parcels
(Special Exception Staff report, July 20, 2021)
•Community Character
The purpose of the fence regulations as stated in ordinance section 21A.40.120.A is “to achieve
a balance between the private concerns for privacy and site design and the public concerns for
enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure the provision of adequate light, air
and public safety.”
Staff has found that allowing greater fence height typically has a negative impact on
neighborhood character.
•Appropriate instances for over height fences
The following were determined to be situations or uses where over height fences are
appropriate and could be allowed by-right:
o Public Facilities, such as municipal structures, schools, or utility buildings
o Recreation Facilities, such as around parks, open space, or similar recreation areas
o Athletic fields or courts, such as driving ranges, baseball fields, athletic fields; or
similar facilities
o Temporary construction fencing
o Decorative pillars attached to fences that meet the height requirements
Following public review of the draft ordinance, the following over height allowances were
added to address concerns raised:
o The Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission will retain the ability to
Page | 4
approve taller fences to mitigate a negative impact associated with a land use
application. (This was changed to only apply to Conditional Use
Applications and Planned Developments.)
o Side or rear yard fences in single family zones which are next to nonresidential zones
o Gates, arches or trellises attached to fences that meet the height requirements.
o In the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing and EI Extractive Industries zoning districts fences,
walls, or hedges may be up to a maximum of 6 feet in height up to the front yard
setback line.
o If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence,
wall, or hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in height can be placed 10 feet from the front
property line.
Salt Lake City
City Council Briefing
August 17, 2021
Fence Height Text Amendment
PLNPCM2020-00511
Planning Commission
Currently, fences, walls, and hedges are limited to 4 feet in height in front yards (up to the front façade of the building) and 6 feet in the side and rear yards in all zoning districts.
Though an over height fence can be approved through the Special Exception process, excess fence height is generally only approved in limited circumstances.
Fence Height Text Amendment
Planning Commission
Why?
•Provides consistency &
clarity in what property
owners and neighbors can
expect.
•Staff resource can be
redirected
•Geographic equity
•Simplifies the code
•Neighbor vs neighbor
Fence Height Text Amendment
Planning Commission
21A.40.120.E
•Residential Districts:
•Limits fence, wall, and hedge height to 4 feet in the front
yard and 6 feet in the side and rear yards.
Fence Height Text Amendment
Planning Commission
•Nonresidential Districts:
•4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the side and rear
yards.
•In the M-2 and EI zoning districts a maximum of 6 feet
in height up to the front yard setback line.
•If there is no minimum front yard setback in the
underlying zoning district, a maximum of 6 feet in
height 10 feet from the front property line.
Fence Height Text Amendment
Planning Commission
a.Adjacent to Nonresidential Zoning Districts. In the
FR, SR, and R-1 zoning districts shall not exceed 8 feet
where they abut a specific non-residential district.
b.Public Facilities. Up to 12 feet if 80% transparent above
a height of 6 feet.
c. & d. Recreation Facilities. Up to 10 feet in height if 80
percent transparent above a height of 6 feet.
Driving ranges, baseball fields, athletic fields; or similar
facilities may be allowed up to a height necessary to
contain the recreation equipment.
Allowances for Additional Height
Planning Commission
e. Construction Fencing. 10 feet in height in any required yard.
f. Pillars. 18 inches above the allowable height of a fence or wall; minimum spacing of no less than 6 feet.
g. Gates and Arches. Arches or trellises up to 12 feet in height and 5 feet in width may be constructed over a gate.
h. Barbed or Razer Wire Fences: Where permitted, barbed wire and razor wire fences may be up to 12 feet in height.
i. Conditional Use. Additional fence height is imposed as a reasonable condition to mitigate the anticipated detrimental effects of a conditional use. (Note: fence height can already be modified through Planned Developments)
Allowances for Additional Height
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FRO M: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00511
STA FF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore, AICP, Principal Planner
(385)214-9714, kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as
requested and recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by the City Council to amend the zoning
ordinance regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences
(Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and
approved by right (Chapter 21A.40.120). The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and
hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards for all zoning
districts, except for a few specific instances. Those instances include:
•When a residential district abuts a nonresidential district
•Manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts
•Public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect
public safety
•Private game courts
•Temporary construction fencing
•Decorative pillars and arches
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
July 7, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Jul 14, 2021 15:03 MDT)
07/14/2021
07/14/2021
Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the
authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height through the Conditional Use process. The
amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community
organizations (community councils) on July 22, 2020 per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online
open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any
concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment.
Two community councils (East Bench Community Council and Sugar House Community
Council) submitted formal comments expressing concerns with the proposal. Concerns were
primarily on the lack of ability to consider unique circumstances if the special exception is
removed. No community councils requested that staff attend a meeting to review the proposal.
Public Open House: An online open house was held from July 22, 2020 through July 27, 2020.
Planning Commission Meeting: On January 13, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. Five citizens provided testimony related
to the request. Two citizens spoke in support of the request, one against the request, and two with
general comments and questions. The Commission requested clarification on fencing materials
and their durability, discussed fence heights when a property is adjacent to multi-family, and
fencing to secure vacant property. Ultimately, the Commission made a recommendation with a
condition that staff allow fencing up to 6-feet in front yards of vacant lots, as well as to add a
maximum fence height of up to 8-feet when fences in residential zoning districts abut non-
residential uses. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to
the City Council.
Ordinance Changes Since Planning Commission Approval: Following the recommendation
of approval by the Planning Commission the Attorney’s Office created the Ordinance. During
their review a few minor details in the proposed amendment were modified due to legal,
grammatical and technical issues that were identified:
• Removed authority of Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission
(21A.210.E.4.i) to modify fence height through any land use application. The Attorney’s
Office noted that a Conditional Use process is the only process with direct standards that
could be tied to fence height. Please note that fence height can still be modified through
the Planned Development process.
• Clarified when fences tied to private recreational activities may receive additional height
(21A.210.E.4.d).
• Made minor edits throughout to text and definitions to provide clarity. Substance and
meaning of the proposal did not change.
EXHIBITS:
1. Ordinance
2. Project Chronology
3. Notice of City Council Hearing
4. Planning Commission
A) Mailing Notice
B) Staff Report
C) Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
5. Mailing List
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Ordinance
2. Project Chronology
3. Notice of City Council Hearing
4. Planning Commission – January 13, 2021 Public Hearing
A. Mailing Notice
B. Staff Report
C. Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
5. Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A
of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to fence, wall, and hedge height requirements)
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining
to fence, wall, and hedge height requirements pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00511.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission( the “Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on January 13, 2021 to consider a request by the Salt Lake City Council (the “City
Council”) to amend the Salt Lake City Code to remove the Special Exception process under Section
21A.52.030 and adjust the City’s height requirements for fences, walls, and hedges; and
WHEREAS, at its January 13, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the City Council to adopt changes to the Salt
Lake City Code pertaining to fence, wall, and hedge height; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to alter the requirements for fence, wall,
and hedge height as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this
matter, 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.62.040. That Section
21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Definition of Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add
a new definition of Primary Façade, which definition shall be inserted into the list of definitions in
alphabetical order and shall read and appear as follows:
PRIMARY FAÇADE: the side of a building that faces a public or private street and
includes the main customer or resident entrance. Buildings located in zoning
districts that include a mix of residential and that have sides of the building that face
multiple streets shall be interpreted to have a principal façade along each side of the
building that faces a street.
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120. That
Section 21A.40.120 of the Salt Lake City Code (Regulation of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) shall be
and hereby is amended as follows:
21A.40.120: REGULATION OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES:
A. Purpose: Fences, walls and hedges serve properties by providing privacy and security,
defining private space and enhancing the design of individual sites. Fences also affect the public
by impacting the visual image of the streetscape and the overall character of neighborhoods. The
purpose of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the private concerns for privacy and
site design and the public concerns for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure
the provision of adequate light, air and public safety.
B. Location: All fences, walls or hedges shall be erected entirely within the property lines of
the property they are intended to serve.
C. Building Permit Required:
1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of any fence that does not
exceed six feet (6') in height and is not made of concrete or masonry or does not require
structural review under the Uniform Building Code regulations. The permit is to ensure
compliance with adopted regulations.
2. A building permit and fee are required for fences and walls which exceed six feet (6') in
height and all fences or walls of any height that are constructed under the International Building
Code. The permit is to ensure compliance with all Zoning Ordinance standards and requirements
(location, height, types of materials) as well as to ensure the structural integrity of the pilasters
and foundation system which will be verified by plan review and site inspection.
3. The application for a permit must include plans identifying the location and height of the
proposed fence or wall. If the fence or wall is constructed of masonry or concrete of any height
or exceeds six feet (6') in height, construction details showing horizontal and vertical
reinforcement and foundation details shall be shown on the plans.
4. The building permit fee for a fence will be a general permit fee based on construction
costs or valuation of the work as shown in the consolidated fee schedule.
5. Construction of any fence in the following districts shall also comply with the additional
fencing regulations found in the following subsections of this title:
a. FP Foothills Protection District (21A.32.040I),
b. H Historic Preservation Overlay District (21A.34.020E), and
c. Foothill Residential FR-1, FR-2 and FR-3 Districts (21A.24.010P).
D. Design Requirements:
1. Residential districts (chapter 21A.24, "Residential Districts", of this title):
a. Allowed Materials: Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials
that require low maintenance. Acceptable materials for a fence include chainlink, wood, brick,
masonry block, stone, tubular steel, wrought iron, vinyl, composite/recycled materials (hardy
board) or other manufactured material or combination of materials commonly used for fencing.
Other materials of similar quality and durability, but not listed herein, may be used upon
approval by the Zoning Administrator through an administrative interpretation application.
b. Prohibited Materials: Fences and walls shall not be made of or contain:
(1) Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal.
(2) Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal
roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood.
2. Nonresidential districts (chapters 21A.26 through 21A.34 of this title: commercial
districts, manufacturing districts, downtown districts, gateway districts, special purpose districts
and overlay districts):
a. Allowed Materials: Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials
that require minimal maintenance. Acceptable materials for fencing in nonresidential districts
include, but are not limited to, chainlink, prewoven chainlink with slats, wood, brick, tilt-up
concrete, masonry block, stone, metal, composite/recycled materials or other manufactured
materials or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. Other materials of similar
quality and durability, but not listed herein, may be used upon approval by the Zoning
Administrator through an administrative interpretation application.
b. Prohibited Materials: Fences or walls in nonresidential districts shall not be constructed
of or contain:
(1) Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal.
(2) Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal
roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood.
E. Height Restrictions and Gates:
1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the
following zoning districts:
a. Residential Zoning Districts:
(1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.12.E.4 of this code a fence,
wall or hedge located between the front property line and front building line of the
facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance shall not exceed 4
feet in height.
(2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the principal structure
shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
(3) Where there is no existing principal structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall
not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in the rear or side yard areas.
b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts:
(1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the primary facade of
the principal structure shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
(2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary façade of the principal structure
shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
(3) Not withstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and E1 zoning districts
fences, walls, or hedges may be up to 6 feet in height if located between the front
property line and the front yard setback line.
(4) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall,
or hedge of a maximum 6 feet in height may be placed no closer than 10 feet from the
property line.
(5) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind the
primary façade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or fence
and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.12.
2. Double Frontage Lot: A fence, wall, or hedge located on a property where both the front
and rear yards have frontage on a street may be a maximum of 6 feet in height in a front
yard provided the fence, wall, or hedge:
a. is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the
primary entrance to the principal building is located;
b. is in a location that is consistent with other 6 foot tall fence locations on the block;
c. complies with Sight Distance Triangle requirements of this Title; and
d. complies will all other fence, wall, and hedge requirements of this Title.
e. Not exceed 6 feet in height in a front yard.
3. Vacant Lots. Fencing to secure vacant or undeveloped lots may be up to 6 feet in height,
provided the fence is not closer than 5 feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than 80%
transparent. Once the property is developed, the fence will be required to comply with the
height restrictions of this Title.
4. Additional Fence Height Allowed. Notwithstanding any other Section of this Chapter, the
following regulations apply:
a. Adjacent to Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Fences, walls, or hedges in the FR,
SR, and R-1 zoning districts shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the side or rear
yard except where they abut a Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, or Special
Purpose Zoning District. The maximum height shall be 8 feet. This exception
does not apply to fences, walls, or hedges in the corner side yard or front yard, and
only applies where the lot abuts the nonresidential district.
b. Public Utility Facilities. Fences or walls may exceed the maximum height
regulations when the fence or wall is necessary to restrict access and promote
safety of public utility buildings or structures, provided that the portion of the
fence or wall which exceeds a height of 6 feet is at least 80% transparent. In no
event, shall the fence or wall securing a public utility building or structure exceed
12 feet in height.
c. Recreation Facilities. For fences or walls constructed around parks, open space, or
other outdoor recreation areas, the maximum height fence shall be up to 10 feet in
height and may be located in any required yard, provided that the fence or wall is
no less than 80% transparent above a height of 6 feet. Fences or walls for which a
greater height is necessary to protect public safety, such as, driving ranges,
baseball fields, athletic fields; or similar facilities may be allowed within the
subject property to a height necessary to contain the recreation equipment.
d. Private Game Courts, Swimming Pools, and Other Similar Recreation Equipment.
Fences or walls constructed around private game courts, swimming pools, or other
similar recreation equipment expressly permitted in Section 21A.36.020.B, may be
up to 10 feet in height provided that the fence or wall is no less than 80 percent
transparent above a height of 6 feet.
e. Construction Fencing. Temporary fencing to secure construction sites during the
planning, demolition, or construction process is permitted to a maximum of 10
feet in height in any required yard.
f. Pillars. Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to 18 inches above the allowable
height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter
or width of no more than 18 inches; and provided, that the pillars shall have a
minimum spacing of no less than 6 feet apart, measured face to face.
g. Gates and Arches. The height of gates shall conform to the applicable maximum
fence height where the gate is located except that decorative elements on gates
such as scrolls, finials, and similar features may extend up to one foot above the
maximum fence height. In addition, arches or trellises up to 12 feet in height and 5
feet in width may be constructed over a gate if integrated into the fence/gate
design. A maximum of two such arches shall be permitted per property.
h. Barbed or Razor Wire Fences. Where permitted, barbed wire and razor wire
fences may be up to 12 feet in height.
i. Conditional Uses. A fence, wall, or hedge may exceed the allowable height
requirements of this Chapter where additional fence height is imposed as a
reasonable condition to mitigate the anticipated detrimental effects of a
conditional use. Where such additional height is imposed as a reasonable
condition, such height shall not exceed the minimum height necessary to mitigate
the anticipated detrimental effects of the conditional use.
5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a fence,
wall, or hedge shall comply with the Sight Distance Triangle Requirements of this
Section.
a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be
erected to a height in excess of 3 feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within
the sight distance triangle extending 30 feet either side of the intersection of the
respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not
provided as noted in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title.
b. Corner Side, Side, Rear Yards; Sight Distance Triangle: Fences, walls or hedges
may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with
the front facade of the principal structure for residential zoning districts and up to
any required front yard setback line for all other zoning districts), required side
yard or required rear yard to a height not to exceed 6 feet. The zoning
administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height
along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys.
c. Intersection of Driveway; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges
shall not exceed 30 inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in
section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title.
d. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a
sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50% open shall be
allowed to a height of 4 feet.
e. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and
alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team,
may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring
increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns
created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions.
6. Height Measurement. The height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall be measured from the
finished grade of the site as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title. In instances of an
abrupt grade change at the property line, the height for fences that are located on top of a
retaining wall shall be measured from the top of the retaining wall.
7. Gates:. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the
location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way,
passenger vehicles shall require a minimum 17 foot 6 inch setback from back edge of
sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways
shall require a 100 foot setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a
sidewalk is not provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate
that does not impact the staging area.
F. General Requirements:
1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain
untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard
deterioration.
2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the
ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of
columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to
support the materials and withstand wind loads.
3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair,
free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare.
G. Barbed Wire Fences:
1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the AG, AG-2, AG-
5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, M-2 and D-2 districts.
2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a
special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those
listed above as permitted uses. The planning commission may approve as special exceptions, the
placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping out of animals around
nonresidential properties, transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other
similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any
residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of
residence.
3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front yard
setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted
urban design element master plan.
4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet
(6') high. No more than three (3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands
shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical line. No
barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants outward
over adjoining private property the applicant must submit written consent from adjoining
property owner agreeing to such a projection over the property line.
5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve, as a
special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if it is found that the applicant has
shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from
dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave stations or construction
sites.
H. Razor Wire Fences:
1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a
special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 and M-2
zoning districts. The planning commission may approve as a special exception the placement of
razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or industrial uses, transformer
stations, microwave stations, or other similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that
the requested fence is not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence.
2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front or
corner side yard setback.
3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is
less than seven feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen inches (18") in diameter
and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached.
4. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve razor
wire fencing if the commission finds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is necessary for
the security of the property in question.
I. Exemption: The A airport district is exempt from all zoning ordinance fence regulations.
The department of airports has administrative authority to regulate and approve fencing within
the A airport district. All fencing that the department of airports requires of its clients within the
A district is subject to review and approval by the airport.
J. Electric Security Fences:
1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 and M-
2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are prohibited.
2. Special Exception: Electric security fences on parcels or lots adjacent to a commercial
zone may be approved as a special exception pursuant to the requirements in chapter 21A.52 of
this title.
3. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required front
yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
4. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be constructed
or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes.
5. Perimeter Fence Or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used unless it is
fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than six feet (6') in height. There
shall be at least one foot (1') of spacing between the electric security fence and the perimeter
fence or wall.
6. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site staging prior
to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to accommodate a vehicle
completely outside of the public right of way.
7. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of ten feet (10').
8. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs that
read: "Warning-Electric Fence" at intervals of not greater than sixty feet (60'). Signs shall
comply with requirements in chapter 21A.46, "Signs", of this title.
9. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or box that holds
building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsections 21A.52.030.A. That
Subsection 21A.52.030.A shall be and is hereby amended as follows:
21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED:
A. In addition to any other special exceptions authorized elsewhere in this title, the following
special exceptions are authorized under the provisions of this title:
1. Accessory building height, including wall height, in excess of the permitted height
provided:
a. The extra height is for architectural purposes only, such as a steep roof to match
existing primary structure or neighborhood character.
b. The extra height is to be used for storage of household goods or truss webbing and not
to create a second level.
c. No windows are located in the roof or on the second level unless it is a design feature
only.
d. No commercial use is made of the structure or residential use unless it complies with
the accessory dwelling unit regulations in this title.
2. Accessory structures in the front yard of double frontage lots, which do not have any rear
yard provided:
a. The required sight visibility triangle shall be maintained at all times.
b. The structure meets all other size and height limits governed by the zoning ordinance.
3. Additional building height in commercial districts are subject to the standards in chapter
21A.26 of this title.
4. Additional foothills building height, including wall height, shall comply with the
standards in chapter 21A.24 of this title.
5. Additional residential building height, including wall height, in the R-1 districts, R-2
districts and SR districts shall comply with the standards in chapter 21A.24 of this title.
6. Any alternative to off street parking not listed in chapter 21A.44 of this title intended to
meet the number of required off street parking spaces.
7. Barbed wire fences may be approved subject to the regulations of chapter 21A.40 of this
title.
8. Conditional home occupations subject to the regulations and conditions of chapter
21A.36 of this title.
9. Dividing existing lots containing two (2) or more separate residential structures into
separate lots that would not meet lot size, frontage width or setbacks provided:
a. The residential structures for the proposed lot split already exist and were constructed
legally.
b. The planning director agrees and is willing to approve a subdivision application.
c. Required parking equal to the parking requirement that existed at the time that each
dwelling unit was constructed.
10. Use of the front yard for required parking when the rear or side yards cannot be
accessed and it is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and setback
requirements, subject to the standards found in chapter 21A.44 of this title.
11. Grade changes and retaining walls are subject to the regulations and standards of
chapter 21A.36 of this title.
12. Ground mounted central air conditioning compressors or systems, heating, ventilating,
pool and filtering equipment located in required side and rear yards within four feet (4') of the
property line. The mechanical equipment shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County health
department noise standards.
13. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room or a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool,
or other similar uses in an accessory structure, subject to the following conditions:
a. The height of the accessory structure shall not exceed the height limit established by the
underlying zoning district unless a special exception allowing additional height is allowed.
b. If an accessory building is located within ten feet (10') of a property line, no windows
shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines.
c. If the accessory building is detached, it must be located in the rear yard.
d. The total covered area for an accessory building shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of
the building footprint of the principal structure, subject to all accessory building size limitations.
14. In line additions to existing residential or commercial buildings, which are
noncomplying as to yard area or height regulations provided:
a. The addition follows the existing building line and does not create any new
noncompliance.
b. No additional dwelling units are added to the structure.
c. The addition is a legitimate architectural addition with rooflines and exterior materials
designed to be compatible with the original structure.
15. Operation of registered home daycare or registered home preschool facility in residential
districts subject to the standards of chapter 21A.36 of this title.
16. Outdoor dining in required front, rear and side yards subject to the regulations and
standards of chapter 21A.40 of this title.
17. Razor wire fencing may be approved subject to the regulations and standards in chapter
21A.40 of this title.
18. Replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying segment of a residential or
commercial structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure provided:
a. The owner documents that the new construction does not encroach farther into any
required rear yard than the structure being replaced.
b. The addition or replacement is compatible in design, size and architectural style with
the remaining or previous structure.
19. Underground building encroachments into the front, side, rear and corner side yard
setbacks provided the addition is totally underground and there is no visual evidence that such an
encroachment exists.
20. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner and evaporative swamp coolers located in
required front, corner, side and rear yards within two feet (2') of a property line shall comply
with applicable Salt Lake County health department noise standards.
21. Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing in the CG, M-1, M-2 or EI
districts, subject to the standards in chapter 21A.44 of this title.
22. Ground mounted utility boxes may be approved subject to the regulations and standards
of section 21A.40.160 of this title.
23. Legalization of excess dwelling units may be granted subject to the following
requirements and standards:
a. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City
community housing plan. This plan emphasizes maintaining existing housing stock in a safe
manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of neighborhoods within the city. This
subsection provides a process that gives owners of property with one or more excess dwelling
units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such units based on the standards set
forth in this subsection.
b. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this
subsection shall comply with the following standards.
(1) The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether a
dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall provide
documentation thereof which may include any of the following:
(A) Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar
documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants;
(B) Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building permit,
business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the dwelling unit in question;
(C) Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit;
(D) Historic surveys recognized by the Planning Director as being performed by a
trained professional in historic preservation;
(E) Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor;
(F) Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit (but
not necessarily that the unit was occupied); and
(G) Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record
which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995.
(2) The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12,
1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit, the
following may be considered:
(A) Evidence listed in subsection A24b(1) of this section indicates that the unit has
been occupied at least once every five (5) calendar years;
(B) Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied for
more than five (5) consecutive years;
(C) If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by subsections
A24b(2)(A) and A24b(2)(B) of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction
upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof.
(D) Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which
provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling unit at least once every five
(5) years.
(3) The property where the dwelling unit is located:
(A) Can accommodate on site parking as required by this title, or
(B) Is located within a one-fourth (1/4) mile radius of a fixed rail transit stop or bus
stop in service at the time of legalization.
(4) Any active zoning violations occurring on the property must be resolved except for
those related to excess units.
c. Conditions Of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the
following conditions:
(1) The unit owner shall apply for a business license, when required, within fourteen
(14) days of special exception approval.
(2) The unit owner shall allow the City's building official or designee to inspect the
dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life safety
requirements as provided in title 18, chapter 18.50, "Existing Residential Housing", of this Code.
Such inspection shall occur within ninety (90) days of special exception approval or as mutually
agreed by the unit owner and the City.
(3) All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be completed
within one year unless granted an extension by the Zoning Administrator.
d. Application: In addition to the application requirements in this chapter, an applicant
shall submit documentation showing compliance with the standards set forth in subsection A24b
of this section.
24. Designation, modification, relocation, or reinstatement of a vintage sign as per chapter
21A.46 of this title.
25. Additional height for sports related light poles such as light poles for ballparks, stadiums, soccer
fields, golf driving ranges and sport fields or where sports lights are located closer than thirty feet (30')
from adjacent residential structures.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been published
in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of
______________, 2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending fence, wall, and hedge height requirements
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
May 26, 2021
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2020-00511
July 7, 2020 Petition was assigned to Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner, for
staff analysis and processing.
July 22, 2020 Email sent to all Recognized Community Organizations informing
them of the petition.
July 22, 2020 Online Open House for project began.
August 27, 2020 Online Open House concluded.
December 29, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State
websites and Planning Division listserv. Newspaper notice was
also requested to be printed.
January 13, 2021 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and held a public
hearing. The commission voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
February 1, 2021 Ordinance review requested from City Attorney’s office.
3. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020 -00511 Fence Height
Zoning Text Amendment - A request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance
regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter
21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right
(Chapter 21A.40.120). The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to
four feet (4’) in front yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards for all zoning districts, except
for a few specific instances. Those instances include when a residential district abuts a
nonresidential district, manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts, public facilities
and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game
courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic
Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height
as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all
zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location.
**This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our
website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during
the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24 -Hour comment line at
(801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received
through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please call Krissy Gilmore at 385-214-9714
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at
kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com. You may review the file online at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/citizen, by selecting the Planning tab, and entering the petition
numbers PLNPCM2020-00511.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days
in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. Mailing Notice
December 29, 2020
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Staff Report
January 13, 2021
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801.535.7757 FAX 801.535.6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Krissy Gilmore, kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com, 801-535-7780
Date: January 13, 2020
Re: PLNPCM202020-00511 Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Zoning Text Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
PARCEL ID: N/A
MASTER PLAN: N/A
ZONING DISTRICT: All Zoning Districts
REQUEST:
This is a request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the
Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define
instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right (Chapter 21A.40.120).
The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards
and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards for all zoning districts, except for a few specific instances.
Those instances include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, manufacturing
and extractive industries zoning districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater
height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing.
Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the
authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The
amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the information in this staff report and the standards to consider for zoning text
amendments, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed Code Text
B. Existing Code Text
C. Analysis of Standards – Zoning Text Amendment
D. Public Process and Comments
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
E. Department Review Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:
The proposed amendments to the Special
Exception and Fence Height zoning code are
primarily intended to provide uniformity and
clear expectations to the public for when an over
height fence, wall, or hedge is appropriate, as well
as to remove the complicated and costly special
exception process.
Currently, fences, walls, and hedges are limited to
four feet in height in front yards (up to the front
façade of the building) and six feet in the side and
rear yards in all zoning districts. Though an over
height fence can be approved through the Special
Exception process, excess fence height is generally
only approved in limited circumstances due to
compatibility issues with the development pattern and character of Salt Lake City neighborhoods.
The proposed amendment defines specific instances when an over height fence is appropriate and
can be approved by-right and removes the special exception process. For reference, special
exceptions are minor changes to an incidental use of the property or a dimensional requirement
in the zoning ordinance, such as additional fence height. The process includes a mailed notice to
next door neighbors for input before a decision. The decisions are usually made by planning staff,
but controversial requests or requests that cannot be approved by staff are referred to the
Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission.
The above is a list of helpful definitions to review as the proposed amendment is considered. The
full proposed regulations can be read in the full code proposal in Attachment A. New regulations
and changed regulations are underlined in that attachment. Some of the proposed changes are
discussed further in the Key Considerations section due to public input.
Defined Terms
21A.62: Fence: A structure erected to provide privacy or security which defines a private space and
may enhance the design of individual sites. A wall or similar barrier shall be deemed a fence.
The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance does not specifically define wall or hedge. Any word not defined in
the Zoning Ordinance shall be defined in Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (see 21A.62.010). The Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary includes the following definitions:
Wall: (a) a high thick masonry structure forming a long rampart or an enclosure chiefly for
defense —often used in plural; (b) a masonry fence around a garden, park, or estate; (c) a
structure that serves to hold back pressure (as of water or sliding earth)
Hedge: a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees
Key Points
• Removes the Special Exception process to
request additional fence height.
• Defines instances where additional fence
height could be appropriate.
• Generally, limits fence height to 4’ in the
front yard.
• Developments could still request excess
fence height through land use applications
that already require review by the Planning
Commission and Historic Landmark
Commission.
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Applicable Review Processes and Standards
Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment
Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four standards, pertaining to whether proposed
code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning
ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best
professional practices. Those standards are addressed in Attachment C.
City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not
controlled by any one standard.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The key considerations and concerns below have been identified through the analysis of the
project, community input, Planning Commission input, and department reviews:
1. Consistency & Clarity
2. Staff & City Resources
3. Community Character
4. Appropriate instances for over height fences
Consideration 1. Consistency & Clarity
An increasing number of requests for over height fences have been received for special exception
review. A review of all special exception applications shows that fence height has been the top
requested special exception for the last three years (104 applications). The application tracking
system does not easily show how many have been approved or denied, but staff believes that it is
rare for an over height fence to be approved in the front yard due to compatibility issues. Majority
of the approved over height fences were likely in the side or rear yards. Planning Commission has
also heard at least two requests for over height fences in the last year. Both were denied by the
Commission.
The over height fence special exception results in an unpredictable development pattern, as well
as unpredictable expectations for applicants. Often, applicants assume that the act of applying
equals approval and are confused when it is denied. If applications are routinely denied or
discouraged, such as fence height, then the ordinance should not provide an exception.
Consideration 2: Staff & City Resources
The Fence Height Text Amendment is being reviewed separately from a larger application to
remove all special exceptions. The following briefly summarizes the issue of staff and city
resources, and the removal of Special Exceptions:
Special exceptions require staff resources to be allocated to processing applications that
only benefit individual property owners instead of addressing citywide growth issues
and implementing master plans through other code updates. This creates equity issues
because the city resources are required by code to be directed to those neighborhoods
where most applications come from. More than 85% of all land use applications received
come from property owners east of I-15.
The special exception fee is subsidized by the general fund. The application fee in 2019
was $259. The average staff processing time is about 20 hours. The fee covers between
37% and 48% of the cost to process. That percentage decreases to 14-18% of the cost for
applications that must be reviewed by the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Commission. Special exception application fees generate about $38,000 in revenue for
the city but cost at least $80,000 to process. The number of special exception applications
has increased by 400% since 2011 forcing an inequitable subsidy of city resources to the
benefit of individual property owners without any benefit to the general public.
Source: Special Exception Code Changes Staff Report, Published September 25, 2020
(http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2020/00606StaffRepo
rt.pdf)
Consideration 2: Neighborhood Character
The purpose of the fence regulations as stated in
ordinance section 21A.40.120.A is “to achieve a balance
between the private concerns for privacy and site
design and the public concerns for enhancement of the
community appearance, and to ensure the provision of
adequate light, air and public safety.” As to the
compliance with the above purposes, building a fence
that exceeds the height limits in the front of the property
would create a walled-in effect and establish a greater
level of privacy than is generally expected in Salt Lake
City. Furthermore, generally, excess fence height is not
compatible with the development pattern and character
of the Salt Lake City, which is one of low or no fences
in the front yard area.
The current review standards for Special Exceptions (21A.52.030.A.3) discuss that an over height
fence, wall, or hedge may be granted if it is “determined that there will be no negative impacts
upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and streetscape, maintenance of
public and private views, and matters of public safety.” Staff is of the opinion that it is generally
very difficult to meet the above provision. The character of Salt Lake City neighborhoods is
generally one of low or no fences in the front yard areas. Additionally, the excessive side and rear
yard heights, though more flexible in height allowance, are also generally not excessive and should
not be to protect private and public views.
Finally, fence height requirements of 4 feet in the front yard and 6 f eet in the side and rear yards
are common nationwide and are found in most city zoning ordinances. Lower fence heights in the
front yard are generally required because of the safety aspect (view of the driver), as well as in the
interest of preserving an unobstructed view of open yards.
Consideration 3: Appropriate instances for over height fences
Through best practice research, discussions with various city divisions, and an analysis of when
over height fences have been approved in Salt Lake City, the following were determined to be
situations or uses where over height fences are appropriate and could be allowed by-right:
- Public Facilities, such as municipal structures, schools, or utility buildings
- Recreation Facilities, such as around parks, open space, or similar recreation areas
- Athletic fields or courts, such as driving ranges, baseball fields, athletic fields; or
similar facilities
- Temporary construction fencing
Example of open front yards
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
- Decorative pillars attached to fences that meet the height requirements
Following public review of the draft ordinance, the following over height allowances were added
to address concerns raised:
- The Planning Commission and Historic
Landmark Commission will retain the ability to
approve taller fences to mitigate a negative
impact associated with a land use application.
- Side or rear yard fences in single family zones
which are next to nonresidential zones
- Gates, arches or trellises attached to fences that
meet the height requirements.
- In the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing and EI
Extractive Industries zoning districts fences,
walls, or hedges may be up to a maximum of 6
feet in height up to the front yard setback line.
- If there is no minimum front yard setback in the
underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or
hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in height can be placed 10 feet from the front property
line.
Staff believes these additions address concerns expressed during the public input phase, while
also meeting community character objectives described above, such as avoiding a walled in effect.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed code updates have been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment standards in
Attachment C. Excess fence height is generally not compatible with the development pattern and
character of Salt Lake City neighborhoods and should be discouraged in the interest of proving
uniformity and clear expectations to the public. Removing the special exception process and
defining instances where taller fences could be approved by-right provides predictability for
property owners, as well as frees up staff resources to focus on citywide projects. Due to these
considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation
on this request to the City Council.
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposal
and can request that changes be made to the proposal. The recommendation and any requested
changes will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on
the proposed changes. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or
decline to approve the proposed changes.
If ultimately approved by the City Council, the changes would be incorporated into the City Zoning
code and new development would be required to follow the new regulations.
Example of a gate and trellis
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Proposed Code
This attachment includes a “clean” version of the code without strikethroughs and underlines
that show deleted and new text, and a “draft” version that identifies such deletions and new text
with strikethroughs and underlines.
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
1
1
MODIFICATIONS TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS 2
3
21A.40.120.E: REGULATION OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES: 4
5
E. Height Restrictions And Gates: 6
Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following unless otherwise permitted by this 7
Title: 8
1. Residential Zoning Districts: 9
a. Except for the special foothills regulations as outlined in subsection 21A.24.010P, 10
and subsection 21A.120.E.3 of this title, no fence, wall or hedge shall be erected 11
to a height in excess of 4 feet between the front property line and the primary 12
façade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance. 13
14
b. Fences, walls or hedges located at or behind the primary façade of the principal 15
structure shall not exceed 6 feet. The zoning administrator may require either 16
increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide 17
adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 18
19
c. When there is no existing principal structure, fence, wall, or hedge height shall 20
not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or when adjacent to a public street or 6 feet 21
in the rear or interior side yard areas. 22
23
24
* Primary Façade is the side of a building that faces a public street and includes the main 25
customer or resident entrance. 26
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 27
a. The maximum height for fences, walls, or hedges when between the front 28
property line and primary façade of the principal structure shall be 4 feet and 29
when located at or behind the primary façade of the principal structure shall be 6 30
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
2
feet. In the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to a 31
maximum of 6 feet in height up to the front yard setback line. If there is no 32
minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or 33
hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in height can be placed 10 feet from the front 34
property line. 35
36
37
38
b. Outdoor storage, when allowed in the Zoning District, shall be located behind the 39
primary façade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or 40
fence. 41
42
c. Double Frontage Lots. A fence, wall, or hedge located on a property where both 43
the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be a maximum of six feet in 44
height in a front yard provided the fence, wall, or hedge: 45
a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard 46
where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; 47
b. Is in a location that is consistent with other six foot tall fence locations 48
on the block; 49
c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this Title; and 50
d. Complies with all other fence, wall, and hedge requirements of this 51
Title. 52
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
3
53
3. Allowances for additional height for fences, walls, or hedges unless otherwise permitted 54
by this Title: 55
a. Adjacent to Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Fences, walls, or hedges in the FR, 56
SR, and R-1 zoning districts shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the side or rear yard 57
except where they abut a Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, or Special Purpose 58
Zoning District. This exception does not apply to fences, walls, or hedges in the corner 59
side yard or front yard, and only applies where the lot abuts the nonresidential district. 60
b. Public Facilities. Fences or walls for which a greater height is necessary 61
because of an association with uses that require high fences to protect public safety or 62
fences that are required by federal or state law, such as, but not limited to, institutional 63
uses, utility buildings or structures for municipal service uses, public schools, or similar 64
facilities may be allowed up to a maximum height of 12 feet provided the fence or wall is 65
no less than 80% transparent above a height of six feet. 66
67
c. Recreation Facilities. For fences or walls constructed around parks, open space, 68
or other outdoor recreation areas, the maximum height fence shall be up to 10 feet in 69
height and may be located in any required yard, provided that the fence or wall is no less 70
than 80 percent transparent above a height of six feet. Fences or walls for which a greater 71
height is necessary to protect public safety, such as, driving ranges, baseball fields, 72
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
4
athletic fields; or similar facilities may be allowed within the subject property to a height 73
necessary to contain the recreation equipment. 74
d. Private Game Courts, Swimming Pools, and Other Similar Recreation 75
Equipment. For fences or walls constructed around private game courts, swimming pools, 76
or other similar recreation equipment, the maximum height shall be up to 10 feet 77
provided that the fence or wall is no less than 80 percent transparent above a height of six 78
feet. 79
80
e. Construction Fencing. Temporary fencing to secure construction sites during 81
the planning, demolition, or construction process is permitted to a maximum of 10 feet in 82
height in any required yard provided the fence complies with site distance triangle 83
requirements of this Title. 84
f. Pillars. Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to 18 inches above the allowable 85
height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or 86
width of no more than 18 inches; and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum 87
spacing of no less than 6 feet, measured face to face. 88
g. Gates and Arches. The height of gates shall conform to the applicable 89
maximum fence height where the gate is located except that decorative elements on gates 90
such as scrolls, finials, and similar features may extend up to one foot above the 91
maximum fence height. In addition, arches or trellises up to 12 feet in height and five feet 92
in width may be constructed over a gate if integrated into the fence/gate design. A 93
maximum of two such arches shall be permitted per parcel. 94
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
5
95
96
g. Barbed or Razer Wire Fences: Where permitted, barbed wire and razor wire 97
fences may be up to 12 feet in height. 98
h. Commission Authority. The Planning Commission or Historic Landmark 99
Commission can modify fence, wall, or hedge height as part of their approval of a land 100
use application in order to mitigate impacts according to the approval standards for the 101
applicable land use application. 102
4. Vision Clearance and Safety: 103
a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be 104
erected to a height in excess of three feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the 105
sight distance triangle extending thirty feet either side of the intersection of the respective 106
street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in 107
section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. Intersection Of Driveway; Sight Distance 108
Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed thirty inches in height within 109
the sight distance triangle as defined in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 110
c. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a 111
sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50 percent open shall be 112
allowed to a height of four feet. 113
d. Alternative Design Solutions: To provide adequate line of sight for driveways 114
and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, 115
may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring 116
increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by 117
the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 118
5. Height Measurement: The height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall be measured from the 119
"finished grade" of the site as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title. In instances of an 120
abrupt grade change at the property line, the height for fences that are located on top of a retaining 121
wall shall be measured from the top of the retaining wall. 122
123
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
6
124
6. Gates: No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 125
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the 126
location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way, passenger 127
vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen foot six inch setback from back edge of sidewalk, or 128
property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall require a one 129
hundred foot setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not 130
provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does not impact the 131
staging area. 132
F. General Requirements: 133
1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain 134
untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard 135
deterioration. 136
2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the 137
ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of 138
columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to 139
support the materials and withstand wind loads. 140
3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, 141
free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. 142
21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: 143
(removed Special Exception authorization for over-height fences, walls, or hedges) 144
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
1
1
MODIFICATIONS TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS 2
3
21A.40.120.E: REGULATION OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES: 4
5
E. Height Restrictions And Gates: 6
Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following unless otherwise permitted by this 7
Title: 8
9
1. General Height: 10
1. a. Residential zoning districts: Zoning Districts: 11
a. Except for the special foothills regulations as outlined in subsection 21A.24.010P, 12
and subsection 21A.120.E.3 of this title, no fence, wall or hedge shall be erected 13
to a height in excess of four4 feet (4') between the front property line and front 14
building line of the primary façade of the principal structure that contains the 15
primary entrance. 16
17
b. Fences, walls or hedges located at or behind the primary façade of the principal 18
structure shall not exceed 6 feet. The zoning administrator may require either 19
increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide 20
adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 21
b. 22
c. When there is no existing principal structure, fence, wall, or hedge height shall 23
not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or when adjacent to a public street or 6 feet 24
in the rear or interior side yard areas. 25
26
27
* Primary Façade is the side of a building that faces a public street and includes the main 28
customer or resident entrance. 29
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
2
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 30
a. No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of four feet (4') 31
when within any required front yard area. Fencing for outdoor storage shall be 32
located behind any required front yard area. The maximum height for fences, 33
walls, or hedges when between the front property line and primary façade of the 34
principal structure shall be 4 feet and when located at or behind the primary 35
façade of the principal structure shall be 6 feet. In the M-2 and EI zoning districts 36
fences, walls, or hedges may be up to a maximum of 6 feet in height up to the 37
front yard setback line. If there is no minimum front yard setback in the 38
underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in 39
height can be placed 10 feet from the front property line. 40
41
42
43
b. Outdoor storage, when allowed in the Zoning District, shall be located behind the 44
primary façade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or 45
fence. 46
47
c. Double Frontage Lots. A fence, wall, or hedge located on a property where both 48
the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be a maximum of six feet in 49
height in a front yard provided the fence, wall, or hedge: 50
a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard 51
where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; 52
b. Is in a location that is consistent with other six foot tall fence locations 53
on the block; 54
c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this Title; and 55
d. Complies with all other fence, wall, and hedge requirements of this 56
Title. 57
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
3
58
3. Allowances for additional height for fences, walls, or hedges unless otherwise permitted 59
by this Title: 60
a. Adjacent to Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Fences, walls, or hedges in the FR, 61
SR, and R-1 zoning districts shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the side or rear yard 62
except where they abut a Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, or Special Purpose 63
Zoning District. This exception does not apply to fences, walls, or hedges in the corner 64
side yard or front yard, and only applies where the lot abuts the nonresidential district. 65
zoning districtsb. Public Facilities. Fences or walls for which a greater height is 66
necessary because of an association with uses that require high fences to protect public 67
safety or fences that are required by federal or state law, such as, but not limited to, 68
institutional uses, utility buildings or structures for municipal service uses, public 69
schools, or similar facilities may be allowed up to a maximum height of 12 feet provided 70
the fence or wall is no less than 80% transparent above a height of six feet. 71
72
c. Recreation Facilities. For fences or walls constructed around parks, open space, 73
or other outdoor recreation areas, the maximum height fence shall be up to 10 feet in 74
height and may be located in any required yard, provided that the fence or wall is no less 75
than 80 percent transparent above a height of six feet. Fences or walls for which a greater 76
height is necessary to protect public safety, such as, driving ranges, baseball fields, 77
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
4
athletic fields; or similar facilities may be allowed within the subject property to a height 78
necessary to contain the recreation equipment. 79
d. Private Game Courts, Swimming Pools, and Other Similar Recreation 80
Equipment. For fences or walls constructed around private game courts, swimming pools, 81
or other similar recreation equipment, the maximum height shall be up to 10 feet 82
provided that the fence or wall is no less than 80 percent transparent above a height of six 83
feet. 84
85
e. Construction Fencing. Temporary fencing to secure construction sites during 86
the planning, demolition, or construction process is permitted to a maximum of 10 feet in 87
height in any required front yard areayard provided the fence complies with site distance 88
triangle requirements of this Title. 89
f. Pillars. Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to 18 eighteen inches (18") above 90
the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum 91
diameter or width of no more than 18eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that the pillars 92
shall have a minimum spacing of no less than 6six feet (6'), measured face to face. 93
2. g. Gates and Arches. The height of gates shall conform to the applicable 94
maximum fence height where the gate is located except that decorative elements on gates 95
such as scrolls, finials, and similar features may extend up to one foot above the 96
maximum fence height. In addition, arches or trellises up to 12 feet in height and five feet 97
in width may be constructed over a gate if integrated into the fence/gate design. A 98
maximum of two such arches shall be permitted per parcel. 99
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
5
100
101
g. Barbed or Razer Wire Fences: Where permitted, barbed wire and razor wire 102
fences may be up to 12 feet in height. 103
h. Commission Authority. The Planning Commission or Historic Landmark 104
Commission can modify fence, wall, or hedge height as part of their approval of a land 105
use application in order to mitigate impacts according to the approval standards for the 106
applicable land use application. 107
4. Vision Clearance and Safety: 108
a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be 109
erected to a height in excess of three feet (3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within 110
the sight distance triangle extending thirty feet (30') either side of the intersection of the 111
respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as 112
noted in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 113
The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower 114
fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and 115
alleys. 116
4. Intersection Of Driveway; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and 117
hedges shall not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within the sight distance triangle as 118
defined in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 119
5. c. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area 120
defined as a sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50fifty percent 121
percent (50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4'). 122
6. d. Alternative Design Solutions: To provide adequate line of sight for 123
driveways and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development 124
review team, may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, 125
requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns 126
created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 127
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
6
7. Measuring: Measuring the 5. Height Measurement: The height of a fence, wall, or hedge 128
shall be measured from the "finished grade" of the site as defined in 129
section 21A.62.04021A.62.040 of this title. 130
8. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission or historic landmark 131
commission may approve taller fencing if it is found that In instances of an abrupt grade change 132
at the property line, the extra height is necessary for for fences that are located on top of a 133
retaining wall shall be measured from the securitytop of the property in question as defined 134
in chapter 21A.52 of this title.retaining wall. 135
9 136
137
6. Gates: No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 138
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the 139
location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way, passenger 140
vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen foot six inch (17'6") setback from back edge of 141
sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall 142
require a one hundred foot (100') setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a 143
sidewalk is not provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does 144
not impact the staging area. 145
F. General Requirements: 146
1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain 147
untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard 148
deterioration. 149
2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the 150
ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of 151
columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to 152
support the materials and withstand wind loads. 153
3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, 154
free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. 155
G. Exceptions: Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to eighteen inches (18") 156
above the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a 157
maximum diameter or width of no more than eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that 158
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
7
the pillars shall have a minimum spacing of no less than six feet (6'), measured face to 159
face. 160
H. Encroachments: Encroachments into the "sight distance triangle" for driveways as defined 161
and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be approved by the zoning administrator. This 162
regulation shall also apply to sight distance triangles for alleys. 163
164
21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: 165
3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the height 166
limits established for fences and walls in chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is determined that there 167
will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and 168
streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. Approval of 169
fences, walls and other similar structures may be granted under the following circumstances 170
subject to compliance with other applicable requirements: 171
a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure is 172
constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open, 173
spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at 174
least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; 175
b. Exceeding the allowable height limits on any corner lot; unless the city's traffic 176
engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe traffic 177
condition; 178
c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which extend 179
above the allowable height limits; 180
d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved 181
recreational uses which require special height considerations; 182
e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative 183
impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other encroachments on the 184
rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics; 185
f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; 186
g. Avoiding a walled-in effect in the front yard of any property in a residential district 187
where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of open spaces 188
from property to property; or 189
h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioner's property or 190
neighbor's property adjacent to the proposed fence, wall or similar structure. 191
(removed Special Exception authorization for over-height fences, walls, or hedges) 192
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Existing Code Text
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text – Original Chapter
1
MODIFICATIONS TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS 1
2
21A.40.120.E: REGULATION OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES: 3
4
E. Height Restrictions And Gates: 5
1. General Height: 6
a. Residential zoning districts: Except for the special foothills regulations as outlined in 7
subsection 21A.24.010P of this title, no fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in 8
excess of four feet (4') between the front property line and front building line of the facade of the 9
principal structure that contains the primary entrance. 10
b. Nonresidential zoning districts: No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in 11
excess of four feet (4') when within any required front yard area. Fencing for outdoor storage 12
shall be located behind any required front yard area. 13
2. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a 14
height in excess of three feet (3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance 15
triangle extending thirty feet (30') either side of the intersection of the respective street curb 16
lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in section 21A.62.050, 17
illustration I of this title. 18
3. Corner Side, Side, Rear Yards; Sight Distance Triangle: Fences, walls or hedges may be 19
erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front facade of the 20
principal structure for residential zoning districts and up to any required front yard setback line 21
for all other zoning districts), required side yard or required rear yard to a height not to exceed 22
six feet (6'). The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence 23
height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 24
4. Intersection Of Driveway; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall 25
not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in 26
section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 27
5. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a sight 28
distance triangle, see through fences that are at least fifty percent (50%) open shall be allowed to 29
a height of four feet (4'). 30
6. Alternative Design Solutions: To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, 31
the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, may require 32
alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring increased fence setback 33
and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade 34
change or other preexisting conditions. 35
7. Measuring: Measuring the height of a fence shall be from the "finished grade" of the site 36
as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title. 37
8. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission or historic landmark 38
commission may approve taller fencing if it is found that the extra height is necessary for the 39
security of the property in question as defined in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 40
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text – Original Chapter
2
9. Gates: No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 41
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the 42
location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way, passenger 43
vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen foot six inch (17'6") setback from back edge of 44
sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall 45
require a one hundred foot (100') setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a 46
sidewalk is not provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does 47
not impact the staging area. 48
F. General Requirements: 49
1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain 50
untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard 51
deterioration. 52
2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the 53
ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of 54
columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to 55
support the materials and withstand wind loads. 56
3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, 57
free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. 58
G. Exceptions: Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to eighteen inches (18") above the 59
allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or 60
width of no more than eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum 61
spacing of no less than six feet (6'), measured face to face. 62
H. Encroachments: Encroachments into the "sight distance triangle" for driveways as defined 63
and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be approved by the zoning administrator. This 64
regulation shall also apply to sight distance triangles for alleys. 65
66
21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: 67
3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the height 68
limits established for fences and walls in chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is determined that there 69
will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and 70
streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. Approval of 71
fences, walls and other similar structures may be granted under the following circumstances 72
subject to compliance with other applicable requirements: 73
a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure is 74
constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open, 75
spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at 76
least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; 77
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text – Original Chapter
3
b. Exceeding the allowable height limits on any corner lot; unless the city's traffic 78
engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe traffic 79
condition; 80
c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which extend 81
above the allowable height limits; 82
d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved 83
recreational uses which require special height considerations; 84
e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative 85
impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other encroachments on the 86
rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics; 87
f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; 88
g. Avoiding a walled-in effect in the front yard of any property in a residential district 89
where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of open spaces 90
from property to property; or 91
h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioner's property or 92
neighbor's property adjacent to the proposed fence, wall or similar structure. 93
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Analysis Of Zoning Text
Amendment Standards
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
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. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the
following:
CONSIDERATION FINDING RATIONALE
1. Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies
of the City as stated
through its various
adopted planning
documents;
The proposed
amendments are
generally
consistent with
the goals and
policies the
City’s plans.
Though no citywide plans specifically discuss fence
height, Plan Salt Lake includes Guiding Principle 8:
Beautiful City, which is focused on providing an attractive
built form that protects views of natural spaces, and
reflects our commitment to high quality neighborhoods
and protecting neighborhood character.
The proposed amendments are in line with the adopted
and utilized Master Plans and additional adopted
planning documents, and is considered a vital segment of
the stability of neighborhoods.
2. Whether a proposed
text amendment furthers
the specific purpose
statements of the zoning
ordinance;
The proposal
generally
furthers the
specific purpose
statements of
the zoning
ordinance by
ensuring their
enforcement and
administration.
The purpose of the zoning ordinance is 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, and
carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use
Development and Management Act (State Code).” The
proposed amendments provide consistency and
predictability to reduce land use conflicts, better
allowing enforcement and administration of the City’s
zoning ordinance. The proposed changes maintain
conformity with the general purpose statements of the
zoning ordinance and ensure that the code can be legally
administered and enforced to further those ordinance
purposes. Additionally, according to Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design Guidebook, tall fences,
over grown shrubbery and other barriers blocking sight
lines adjacent to pedestrian paths could shield an
attacker. Alternatively, low hedges or fences, allow for
“eyes on the street” and usually discourage crime and
vandalism, meeting safety goals of the purpose
statement.
3. Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay
The proposal is
consistent with
and does not
impact the
enforceability of
The proposed text amendment is citywide and is not tied
directly to any property or specific geographic location
within the City. Therefore, the amendment would not be
subject to any overlay zoning district standards.
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
zoning districts which
may impose additional
standards; and
any existing
appeal process
references in any
zoning overlays.
The proposed amendments do allow for the Planning
Commission and Historic Landmark Commission to
approve additional fence height as part of a land use
application review.
4. The extent to which
a proposed text
amendment implements
best current,
professional practices of
urban planning and
design.
The proposed
changes
eliminate legal
conflicts,
improve
enforceability
and
administration
of City Code,
and so
implement best
professional
practices.
As discussed, the proposed changes clearly outline when
over height fences are appropriate, removing the
somewhat unpredictable process and outcome of special
exceptions. The proposed amendments allow for better
administration and streamlining of city code. The
regulations do not relate to any specifics relating to
professional practices of design. Additionally, urban
design practices discourage the use of excessively tall
fences, specifically in front yards, due to visual
appearance and safety.
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Public Process And
Comments
The following attachment lists the public meetings that have been held, and other public input
opportunities related to the proposed project. All written comments that were received
throughout this process are included within this attachment.
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities
related to the proposal:
• Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out July 22, 2020
o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community
councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage
o Two community councils (East Bench Community Council and Sugar House
Community Council) submitted formal comments. No community councils
requested that staff attend a meeting to review the proposal. Both community
councils expressed concerns with the proposed amendment.
o Numerous public comments were received, which are included on the following
pages. The majority of the comments focused on two specific projects and concerns
associated with not allowing a taller fence in those instances. Other comments
requested more consideration to what situations could grant additional fence
height, such as for properties next to public lands.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
• Public hearing notice mailed on December 30, 2020
• Public hearing notice published to newspaper January 2, 2021
• Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv on
December 30, 2020
From:Aimee Burrows
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height
Date:Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:49:30 AM
Attachments:EBCC Minutes 8.19.20.pdf
Hello Krissy,
I just realized that this email will get to you after the close of the Public Comment Period for
the Fence Height Zoning Amendment, but I'm still going to send it. The membership of East
Bench Community Council voted against this amendment at our meeting on August 19,
2020. There were 15 council members in attendance and the vote was unanimous. Please see
the attached meeting minutes.
Thank you,
Aimee Burrows, Chair
East Bench Community Council
ebcc.chair@gmail.com
EAST BENCH COMMUNITY COUNCIL
General Meeting Agenda
Zoom Meeting, 7 pm, Wednesday, August 19, 2020
25 Participants in All, including Jamie Stokes Community Liaison from Mayor’s Office, Detective Meinzer, Jonathon Bates,
Andrew King, Shawn Wood, and Julianne Sabula for Research Park presentation, and Dan Dugan as our city council
representative
1. Welcome, Introduce Board Members in Attendance: Karrington, Burrows, Moore, Wright, Overdevest, Eyre
2. Business Items
Remaining general meetings for this year: Sept 16, October 21, November 18
Please sign up for updates from Dan Dugan https://www.slc.gov/district6/ and SLC Council
https://www.slc.gov/council/ U of U alerts https://alert.utah.edu/ updates, and Mayor’s update
https://www.slc.gov/mayor/
Lots of local government partners post on NextDoor. The EBCC includes the St Mary’s and Arcadia Heights
neighborhoods.
3. SLC Fire Department Newsletter – no fire representative SLC Fire Station 13, Parleys Way
801-799-3473 | fire@slcgov.com
4. SLC Police Department Report Det. Nathan Meinzer, SLCPD CIU
801-799-3625 | ciudistrict6@slcgov.com
a. Traffic issues - they are aware of a growing presence of street racing, bigger on the west side, making sure
it doesn’t come up to Foothill
b. Allowing police to be more proactive now that Covid is ramping down a little, more citations being issued
c. Car prowls – 14 last month, our district is unique in that we have the most long term residents in our area,
so monitor any suspicious behavior, anyone we don’t recognize from our neighborhood, please call if you
see someone walking around at night with a hoodie or looking out of place; several stolen cars recovered
from our area, 4 burglaries in our area – no forced entry;
i. Burglaries have risen significantly in recent months, it is a national trend that they have been
tracking and they suspect it is due to covid – people unemployed and looking for quick income
d. Question from Dennis Eyre: has there been an unusual amount of people resigning or retiring from the
force? Yes, about 20+ down from resignations, losing bodies fairly quickly. As they lose people out of
patrol, they will move detectives back to patrol – number 1 priority is taking care of the citizens; Dan Dugan
says they’re monitoring it and making sure there is enough staff to keep everyone safe.
5. SLC Mayor’s Report Jamie Stokes, Community Liaison
801-535-7110 | jamie.stokes@slcgov.com
a. Covid: still in orange phase, but looking positive. They are reassessing once a week from health dept,
they’re encouraged by the negative trend (positive) since mask s have been enforced. Economic
development is working with business on how to operate safely: https://www.slc.gov/ed/covid19/ . The
Wellness Bus is offering free COIVD-19 tests to those with and without symptoms.
Check https://healthcare.utah.edu/wellness/driving-out-diabetes/mobile-health-program.php for more
information.
Community comment urging the city to be careful about going to yellow too soon given that the
university is about to open up, governor might be hard to move back to orange once we’re in
yellow
b. Street typologies survey, encouraging us to look at it and give feedback, it’s a vision for what the city could
look like. Comments due Aug 31: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/2019/08/30/typologies/
c. Census is almost over – end of September, please fill it out if you haven’t already – phone, mail, online.
d. Equity front – black lives matter mural completed recently – 8 artists painted 2 letters each. Listen to the
artists behind the City's Black Lives Matter Mural describe their inspiration:
https://www.facebook.com/361929204013526/videos/339445270578049 There are proposals from the
mayor’s office on how to recover economically from Covid using equitable means:
https://www.slc.gov/mayor/2020/08/19/mayor-mendenhall-proposes-budget-to-equitably-address-
community-covid-needs/
6. Salt Lake City Council Report Dan Dugan, District 6
801-535-7784 | dan.dugan@slcgov.com
a. Street Typogology – take the survey, if there’s not enough room for your comments then email Dan
Dugan directly to get your comments into the survey, have until 8/31/20.
b. Census voting – encouraged to register to vote
c. Parley’s Point and Benchmark street – some concern over the development, he’s in contact with the
mayor to make sure the development isn’t hurting the neighborhood.
d. School starts after Labor Day; we have a low rate of Covid 19 test positives about 10% on the east side,
but be sure to keep our guard up and stay safe, get flu shots when the time comes.
e. Indian Hills cell towers – there are concerned community members, Dan Dugan is in tune with it, though it
is in the hands of the school board and the State, currently fighting other 5g cell towers in the city but it’s a
state and federal law that give the providers the right of way – might be up against a brick wall, but aren’t
going to give up for that reason.
7. Research Park Master Plan Jonathon Bates, Exec Dir RE Admin
a. Jonathon gave a 15 minute presentation on the vision plan for Resarch Park, what the next 50 years could
look like: https://realestate.utah.edu/research-park-vision-plan/
b. There was concern over projected height of buildings. Planning committee has taken this into account,
they want to protect the views from the foothills. All projected specifics are on the powerpoint.
c. Planning committee wants to keep an open dialogue, community welcome to leave comments on website
8. Other Business
a. https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/07/22/fence-height-zoning-amendment/
Anthony Wright presented specifics on the fencing variance: our neighborhood has a unique typography
with sloping yards and lots compared to neighborhoods like sugarhouse and 9th and 9th that are built on flat
square lots. The variance was good intentioned, but doesn’t allow for unique typography. The proposed
amendment eliminates allowing things to be taken into a case by case basis.
i. Brooke Karrington made a motion to vote on th e variange, Anthony Wright gave the 2nd. EBCC is
not in favor of this new ordinance: Majority voted against the amendment. 0 community members
voted in favor of the amendment. Due to the conditions that zoom presents, it was hard to identify
if anyone abstained from voting.
ii. The EBCC position has been decided, but community members are still encouraged to go online
to make comments, or email Dan Dugan (dan.duagn@slcgov.com ) your comments and he will
read them and pass them along to the planning committee.
b. Mark Overdevest: discussed 37 acre property between Devonshire with Lakeline going up for sale. Seller
put it through to get 3 buildable lots passed, listed about 10 days ago, $8.75 million is listing price . Son is
listing agent, zoned FR2 (foothill residential 2) and OS (Open Space), each lot must be a minimum of .5
acre; Seller would prefer to sell it to the city and not disturb the Bonneville shoreline trail; Owner has 3 of
the lots zoned but don’t know if there is permission to build
c. If you’re interested in filling a vacancy on EBCC Board, please email ebcc.chair@gmail.com by the end of
this month. The board will appoint a member to the board before the September 16th meeting.
d. Surveys for our community listed below
i. New SLC Flag, due Aug 21: https://www.slc.gov/flag/
ii. Billboard Ordinance: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/07/20/billboard-ordinance-amendments/
iii. Fencing, Walls and Hedges: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/07/22/fence-height-zoning-
amendment/
iv. Restaurants in Public Land Zones: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/08/04/permitting-
restaurants-in-the-public-lands-zoning-district/
E B C C B o a r d M e m b e r s
Aimee Burrows ebcc.chair@gmail.com Anthony Wright anthonywright13@gmail.com
David Wirthlin dbwirthlin@gmail.com Mark Overdevest mark.overdevest@gmail.com
Brooke Karrington b.karrington04@gmail.com Dennis Eyre denniseyre@prodigy.net
Katie Moore domandkatie@gmail.com
Emily Lucht emily.lucht@gmail.com
From:Anthony Wright
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed Fence changes
Date:Monday, July 27, 2020 11:43:48 AM
To whom it may concern,
I was just made aware of the proposed change to fence zoning. I am in opposition to the change. I believe the way
the language reads now allows for more flexibility for unique circumstance where a 6ft front fence may be
acceptable.
While I dislike the idea of properties having a solid fence right next to the sidewalk, an iron or semi transparent
fence in the front of some properties is acceptable and is seen all over the world in many beautiful neighborhoods.
The way the amendment reads is that no matter the circumstance or situation, 4 ft is the max for a residential front
yard. Having a special exemption allows the city to grant the exception for specific circumstances. An iron fence
may be appropriate for a historic district where other structures have the same, or for a property set far back from the
street where a taller transparent fence would not provide a boxed feel.
I hope you consider the potential impact to those with unique circumstances that may benefit from a taller fence. Not
every home or lot is the same and not allowing reasonable exceptions with neighbors approval hurts development.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Anthony Wright
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: Proposed Fence changes
Date:Monday, July 27, 2020 11:59:54 AM
Furthermore saying a person cannot have a hedge over 4 ft tall? What constitutes a hedge? Are
you trying to say no trees can be in the front yard? Define the spacing for trees to be
considered a hedge. This will be an enforcement logistical nightmare. If the city decides to
limit a property owners right to privacy and security that will not sit well with the public.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Anthony Wright >
Date: July 27, 2020 at 11:43:44 AM MDT
To: kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com
Subject: Proposed Fence changes
Anthony Wright Letter
Fencing
I am all for the standardization of the city code. If we can save the city time and resources that
are being spent on variances for things that are likely to be approved, I’m all for that.
My concern is that amendments will be made to the code, the variances will be eliminated, and
that the exceptions that are reasonable and have no adverse impact on the surrounding area,
will be left out. No one can predict every situation that may arise that does not fit into the box
of code. If every home was on a flat, square lot, with the same buffers from commercial
properties, major roads, and no topographic challenges it would be easy to create a code that
everyone can follow. For example, the avenues, foothill, and along the Wasatch fault line,
sometimes have extreme topographic and slope challenges that cannot reasonably meet code
standards. Another example is in historic districts or even neighborhoods with older homes.
Often, homes that are not on the registry but want to bring their home more in line with the
surrounding homes that were built before code implementation, need a variance to keep in line
with the character of the neighborhood.
In regard to the proposed changes to fencing regulation, I feel that the existing variance section
was erased with no addition to the code to address potential reasonable exceptions.
The current permissible variances allowed for additional height if they met very specific criteria.
With this being eliminated, it effectively makes it impossible under any circumstance to build
anything over 4 ft in the front or 6ft for side or rear.
No one wants a majority of houses with solid fencing going to the sidewalk, which even under
the current variances is not allowed. If you refer to the current variances section, you will see
the list of reasonable exceptions such as being constructed with a wrought iron or transparent
options, or it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution,
light or other encroachments on the rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics.
There are times where a taller fence is justified for either privacy, safety, or an attempt to limit
noise, light pollution, or sound of a busy road. Does anyone find it reasonable that we would
not allow someone who lives on foothill drive to not construct a 6 foot fence with a hedge to
help obstruct the noise and pollution?
I believe people should be able to express themselves with their yard and landscaping options.
The current verbiage says no hedge in front of the home shall exceed 4ft. The use of hedge is
extremely vague. Many people plant a row of trees along their driveways, in front of their main
windows, or even have a mature tree trimmed to be a hedge in the front yard. The literal
interpretation would basically make any vegetation in the front yard in violation if over 4 ft tall.
Limiting everyone to the same restrictive standards could hurt the esthetics of our city, limit
creativity and expression, and deny some the right to privacy and security. I challenge the
Anthony Wright Letter
council to drive the city for just 15 minuets and look for fencing that would now be a violation.
You will see the grand wrought iron gates of the lower avenues, 6 foot fencing in front of
homes that sit on major roads, unique and beautiful landscaped hedges and trees over 4 ft , and
corner lots with transparent side fencing. The way the amendment reads now is that a 4 foot
chain link fence can wrap your front yard and driveway while a 6 Ft decorative, mostly
transparent wrought iron fence and gate would be prohibited.
* I ask that you consider including wrought iron, tubular steel, or other transparent fencing as
an option for going up to 6ft in the front of a property. If that still does not seem reasonable,
consider having an increase in height up to 6ft for every foot you step back from the front
property line. I also ask that you consider allowing excess height for ornamental features for a
gate. I would much rather see a beautiful, intricately designed arched gate over a flat 4ft chain
link gate. It would be sad to never again see a new wrought iron gate in our city.
Below are some examples I have found around the city that would be non-conforming under
the amendments but are very reasonable, have no adverse impact on the area, and provide the
privacy and security we citizens are entitled to.
Non permissible 6 ft fence on foothill drive
Anthony Wright Letter
Fencing over 4 ft to alleviate intrusion of noise, and pollution from foothill drive.
Transparent fencing over 4 ft that is stepped back from sidewalks. Not allowed (note, homes are far
from the road and additional height provides security for the property with the home situated in the
middle of the lot).
Anthony Wright Letter
Non permissible hedge on major roads
Anthony Wright Letter
Non permissible hedge in front yard over 4 ft. This hedge is cut from native scrub oak
Non permissible ornamental gate exceeding 4 Ft in height
Anthony Wright Letter
Wrought iron fence exceeding 4 ft in height
3 ft chain link fencing with no landscaping or privacy hedge. Allowed…
From:
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fencing ordinance modification
Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 3:32:31 PM
Ms. Gilmore, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the fencing.
While I appreciate it is easier to be totally uniform throughout the city, it is not always reasonable for
the homeowner. In my case, my property backs up to “wild lands” on the east – there are no roads,
no habitation in the area – but there are cougar. In fact, I have a fence that is 6’ tall on the back, and
I maintain a “down to mineral dirt” firebreak for 10’ wide along the entire east stretch of my
property at the east fence line, with fencing continuing to the west along the entire back yard
reaching down to the house. (I have no fence whatsoever extending from the house to the street.)
Yesterday there was a distinct paw print in the dust in that area – INSIDE the 6’ high fence – which
paw print was of a size to exclude domestic cats and bobcats. Cougar can easily leap 10’ from a
standing position. I had intended to raise the fence to provide protection for me and my family. The
proposed ordinance would prevent me from creating that protection.
I strongly urge the consideration of special circumstances such as property like mine.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Joan Ogden
1423 S Devonshire Drive
Salt Lake City UT 84108
From:Lynn Schwarz
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence Height
Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 7:46:25 PM
Ms. Gilmore:
I cannot understand the reasoning behind SLC's idea to eliminate any mechanism for granting
exceptions regarding fence height. This means that SLC can see the future and has determined
that at no time, never, ever, in perpetuity, will there be a circumstance that necessitates a fence
that cannot fit into your regulations. This is truly incomprehensible considering SLC's efforts
to plop high density housing in single family neighborhoods. Even now, with IZZY South and
Richmond Flats smack dab in the middle of single family neighborhoods, SLC cannot fathom
the necessity of a higher fence to protect the surrounding neighbor's privacy. The neighbor's
concerns are brushed away as inconsequential as SLC leaves NO recourse for unusual
conditions. This makes no sense and must be reconsidered.
Lynn Schwarz
2023 East Crystal Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84109
Sugar House Community Council Trustee
From:thea
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Cc:Judi Short
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed fence height modification ordinance
Date:Thursday, July 30, 2020 11:32:03 AM
Dear Ms. Gilmore:
Have just read through the proposed changes, and am wondering what prompted the complete
omission of the Special Exception Authorization section. Is it because of too many requests to build
higher fences? Are some so frivolous that they are taking up time much better spent on other
issues? If so, I would encourage you to reword the exception section rather than eliminate it.
The plethora of apartment buildings going up in city neighborhoods, while great for increasing
housing capacity, is creating issues for established residents whose back yards are adjacent to them.
These problems are specifically addressed in the current fence ordinance, i.e. in Section (e) allowing
height exceptions in “cases where it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of
noise pollution, light or other encroachments on the right to privacy, safety, security and
aesthetics.” Section (f) refers to “keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban
design of the city.”
I urge you to retain these considerations for the neighbors of these new complexes, and in fact,
change the ordinance to require that the complexes themselves pay for higher fences. In the case of
the Izzy South project, with a ground floor parking garage for about 60 cars, the fence definitely
needs to be higher and made of a solid material to block pollution from the cars. Any developer also
ought to be required to plant at least 10 foot tall trees for each rear-facing unit overlooking
established neighborhood back yards. These requirements would help neighbors without creating
undue extra expense for projects.
The Izzy project design aims to limit harmful impact on our environment, so I would think this would
be acceptable to its developer.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and best wishes,
Thea Brannon
1768 E Wilson Ave.
SLC
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1
Gilmore, Kristina
From:Mary R. Cosgrove <>
Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 7:16 AM
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence height
Our property butts up against the cemetery and I noticed a neighbor east of us has put up very high fences. They appear
to me to be over 6 ft.
I can see why she did this. It's interesting having a cemetery behind your house. A taller fence would be great so the
visitors in the cemetery cannot look into our backyard and we wouldn't have to see the graves and funerals.
I realize we are probably the only houses in SLC the actually have a cemetery cemetery behind their. SL county does
however. It's a consideration.
Thanks,
Mary Cosgrove
2357 Sheridan Rd
84108
From:Judith Boulden
To:Gilmore, Kristina; D. Gordon Wilson; Rhonda Devereaux
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence heigh amendment
Date:Wednesday, August 26, 2020 10:17:05 AM
Hello,
Our neighborhood has a nuisance vacant lot where, over an extended period of time and at
significant neighborhood involvement, we have been able to erect a fence higher than 4’. The
lot is located at 134 Edgecombe Drive and overlooks the City. In the past there has been drug
use, litter, gang violence, shooting, and traffic obstruction at the lot that required calling the
police as well as traffic enforcement. The fence we were finally able to erect, at cost borne by
neighbors and the absent property owner, has reduced this negative activity to a degree,
though not entirely. Replacing this fence with one only 4’ tall would totally defeat all that we
have accomplished over several years. Anyone can get over a 4’ wall. Please reconsider
exceptions to this proposed ordinance to deal with security situation such as we have.
Judith Boulden
79 Edgecombe Drive
Salt Lake City
Sent from my iPad Pro
From:
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) RE: Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Date:Thursday, August 27, 2020 11:20:11 AM
Krissy, I corrected a small typo in this amended version. Thank you! Jim
Regarding Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-0511
Yesterday I was made aware of a proposed amendment to the City’s zoning code which removes the
Special Exception language from the City’s Fence Height Zoning and adds additional restrictive
language. I appreciate that the City has a variety of physical environments to navigate and
conformity to uniform standards is an important tool to ensure equal treatment. However,
complete removal of the Special Exception process eliminates another important tool for the City to
use in circumstances that it had not anticipated.
By way of example, this tool was used very effectively at 134 Edgecombe, a private lot zoned for
single family residential use in our neighborhood. At that location there is a vacant lot in an
otherwise fully developed residential neighborhood. Unfortunately, this lot had become a frequent
high volume view point for many people and was exacerbated by its proximity to the City’s urban
core. Short periods of low volume viewing alone is of course not a contentious issue. Sadly though
this location had become a perpetual extended stay party zone. Residents of the neighborhood
have engaged in a daily trash pickup that commonly includes food packaging waste, beverage
packaging waste, used condoms and hypodermic needles. Frequent visits from SLPD can confirm
these circumstances.
We engaged the neighborhood and solicited input from a broad and diverse set of neighbors,
conducted neighborhood meetings to which all were invited by posting notices on everyone’s door,
conducted formal surveys all of which occurred over a several year period. One result of this effort
was approximately 40 residents providing funding along with the property owner to construct a
fence. In this case a 4-foot fence allowed by right would not have been sufficient to curtail the
problem as it would have been easily bypassed allowing the problem to continue. As such, the
property owner applied for and received a Special Exception allowing for a 6-foot fence which was
installed according to the approved permit.
Although this fence has not provided a complete solution, it has significantly reduced the volume of
traffic. We do continue to pick up trash daily and have explored other options to reduce the appeal
of extended stays. The City has many special publicly designated locations for the enjoyment of our
City’s residents. Private neighborhood locations simply don’t have the necessary resources such as
trash cans, bathrooms, maintenance, enforcement tools among many other issues that are available
at areas designated for public use.
By removing the Special Exception process you are removing an important tool for the City and its
residents to ensure that residential zones are used accordingly in circumstances intended for the
existing Special Exception process. Perhaps you could include language such as, “Special Exceptions
will be granted in circumstances where there are negative environments or conditions that could be
at least partially mitigated by the presence of higher fencing that provides either a physical and/or
visual barrier. Examples of such circumstances include excessive public use, disregard for parking or
other limitations, or the presence or accumulation of waste resulting from such visitation.”
Thank you for your consideration,
James Schulte
Capitol Hill resident
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 11:10 AM
To: 'kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com' <kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com>
Subject: Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Regarding Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-0511
Yesterday I was made aware of a proposed amendment to the City’s zoning code which removes the
Special Exception language from the City’s Fence Height Zoning and adds additional restrictive
language. I appreciate that the City has a variety of physical environments to navigate and
conformity to uniform standards is an important tool to ensure equal treatment. However,
complete removal of the Special Exception process eliminates another important tool for the City to
use in circumstances that it had not anticipated.
By way of example, this tool was used very effectively at 134 Edgecombe, a private lot zoned for
single family residential use in our neighborhood. At that location there is a vacant lot in an
otherwise fully developed residential neighborhood. Unfortunately, this lot had become a frequent
high volume view point for many people and was exacerbated by its proximity to the City’s urban
core. Short periods of low volume viewing alone is of course not a contentious issue. Sadly though
this location had become a perpetual extended stay party zone. Residents of the neighborhood
have engaged in a daily trash pickup that commonly includes food packaging waste, beverage
packaging waste, used condoms and hypodermic needles. Frequent visits from SLPD can confirm
these circumstances.
We engaged the neighborhood and solicited input from a broad and diverse set of neighbors,
conducted neighborhood meetings to which all were invited by posting notices on everyone’s door,
conducted formal surveys all of which occurred over a several year period. One result of this effort
was approximately 40 residents providing funding along with the property owner to construct a
fence. In this case a 4-foot fence allowed by right would not have been sufficient to curtail the
problem as it would have been easily bypassed allowing the problem to continue. As such, the
property owner applied for and received a Special Exception allowing for a 6-foot fence which was
installed according to the approved permit.
Although this fence has not provided a complete solution, it has significantly reduced the volume of
traffic. We do continue to pick up trash daily and have explored other options to reduce the appeal
From:Terry Becker
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: 20+ foot walls
Date:Thursday, August 27, 2020 12:07:03 PM
Kristina,
Thank you for giving me background on the proposed amendent. Planning rules and
regulations are in place to protect our communities from inappropriate development, and
should assure all citizens that planning polcies will be fair and predictable. Three years ago we
had first-hand experience of bad planning process and general standards and considerations for
special exceptions (21A.52.060) were ignored. “Special exception” went from 4 feet to two 20
foot walls, and additional 3 foot cement walls and high fencing on top of those. We hope the
department and commission will think carefully about making changes to the zoning
ordinance.
From:Stokes, Jamie
To:Lynn Schwarz
Cc:Mayor; Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:Re: Elimination of Special Exceptions for Over-Height Fences
Date:Friday, August 28, 2020 2:56:59 PM
Hi Lynn,
Thanks for sharing your feedback about the fence height zoning amendment with our office.
I'm copying Krissy Gilmore on this message so she is aware of your comments -- she is the staff
planner in charge of answering questions and compiling feedback about this particular issue. It
is my understanding that no decision has been reached on the petition in question and there
has yet to be a date set for a public hearing.
I'm happy to answer additional questions you may have, although Krissy is undoubtedly much
more knowledgable than I am. Thanks again for reaching out!
Jamie Stokes
she/her
Community Liaison
385-707-7062
OFFICE of the MAYOR
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
www.slcmayor.com
www.slcgov.com
From: Lynn Schwarz >
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 4:09 PM
To: Mayor <Mayor@slcgov.com>; Fowler, Amy <Amy.Fowler@slcgov.com>; Fullmer, Brian
<Brian.Fullmer@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Elimination of Special Exceptions for Over-Height Fences
I cannot understand the reasoning behind SLC's idea that eliminating any mechanism for granting
exceptions regarding fence heights is a good idea. This means that SLC can see the future and at no
time ever, never, in perpetuity, will there be a circumstance that necessitates a fence that does not
fit your regulations. This is truly incomprehensible considering SLC's efforts to plop high density
housing into single family neighborhoods. Even now, with IZZY South and Richmond Flats smack dab
in the middle of single family neighborhoods, they will only be allowed to have 6 foot fences
separating them from adjoining single family houses. Neighbors are begging for higher fences to
reasonably preserve their privacy, but those requests will be brushed away as inconsequential as SLC
leaves NO recourse for unusual conditions. This makes no sense and must be reconsidered.
Lynn Schwarz
2023 East Crystal Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84109
Sugar House Community Council Trustee
From:Dan Moulding
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Public Comment Re: Fence Height Zoning Amendment (Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-00511)
Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 10:45:23 PM
Hi Krissy,
It was recently brought to my attention that the Planning Commission is taking under
consideration a proposal to amend city fence height zoning ordinances which would have the
effect of removing the "special exception" provision of the existing ordinance, and that public
comment on the proposed amendment has been requested. I would like to submit the
following comment for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Among the reasons given in favor of the proposed amendment, I am to understand, it has been
asserted that, "according to the American Planning Association, special exceptions for fence
height should be discouraged". I would first like to dispel this absurd misconception. The APA
discourages freely granting variances to fence height ordinances[1]. This is not the same thing
as discouraging special exceptions within ordinances, which are utterly distinct from
variances, as I'm sure the Planning Division and Planning Commission will heartily agree.
The special exception provision in the existing Salt Lake City ordinance serves at least two
important purposes:
1) It discourages the practice of freely granting variances at will, in accordance with APA
recommendations, because it prescribes -- by ordinance -- specific situations in which the
standard fence height limits may not be appropriate.
2) It provides the means by which specific types of situations may best be addressed by the
City in a uniform manner, rather than attempting to impose a one-size-fits-all solution to every
situation city-wide.
If the special exception provision were to be removed, as proposed, it would predictably have
the effect of requiring the City to approve more variances than are currently necessary, in
order to address the varying needs of spaces throughout the city -- directly in contravention to
the APA's clearly stated recommendations.
Particularly worrisome, would be the elimination of the following section of the existing
special exception provision:
e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative
impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other encroachments on the
rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics;
Elimination of the special exception provision will mean the elimination of an important tool
the City currently has to allow for higher fences where such height is necessary in order to
ensure the safety and security of our neighborhoods. Even if somehow removing the provision
would result in better uniformity -- it won't, it will simply mean more variances will be
needed, resulting in less uniformity -- trading our neighborhoods' safety for uniformity would
be both unwise and, frankly, irresponsible.
From:Personal
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zoning Ordinance amendment
Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:40:53 PM
Please do what you can to defeat this amendment or change it or grandfather existing permits.
My concern is the fence we as neighbors in concert with the owner of 134 Edgecombe Drive
paid for and had installed to reduce the problem of noise, trash and illicit and illegal activity
taking place nightly.
The fence, while not stopping such activity completely, it has greatly curtailed it. If the zoning
ordinance amendment passes the problem returns full force.
NOT A GOOD OUTCOME
Feel free to contact me.
Phone is
Sent from my iPhone
From:Judith Boulden
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed Fence Height Amendment
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 10:50:03 AM
Dear Ms. Gilmore,
I write in opposition to the proposed change to the regulation of fences that proposes to
eliminate the Special Exception process. The stated reason is to provide uniformity and
promote clear expectations for fence height.
Initially, why is uniformity considered a goal? The City has wonderful diverse
neighborhoods from the charm of the Avenues to the urban structure of the Granary District.
Why should such diverse neighborhoods be uniform and who would expect them to be? I
believe the premise of this proposed change is flawed and counter to producing vibrant,
unique neighborhoods.
More importantly, one of the few exceptions is for public facilities where a greater height
is necessary to protect public safety. There is a pressing example of when private
facilities absolutely require taller fences to promote public safety - 134 Edgecombe Drive. I
live on Edgecombe Drive and have endured the impact of this vacant lot that is a magnet for
illegal drug use, gang conflict, extensive litter and violation of various noise and parking
ordinances on the neighborhood. I routinely picked up “morning after” litter consisting of
used needles, human waste, food and drink remains, bottles and cans, furniture and clothing -
and even offensive weapons. After years of this, a coalition of neighbors over an extended
period of time was able to obtain permission to erect a metal fence higher than 4ft. to keep this
offensive and unsafe conduct out of our neighborhood - now it’s confined to the City street at
least. Why should the City eliminate this increased fence height recourse for private facilities
and allow it only for public facilities. To change the ordinance and maintain the necessity of
taller fences for public facilities for public safety purposes is to acknowledge such exceptions
are essential - why should such exceptions not be available to private facilities for the same
reasons? In circumstances such as 134 Edgecombe Drive, safety surely outweighs uniformity
and some perceived expectation.
Please help us to keep our neighborhood safe and reject this ill thought out amendment.
Respectfully,
Judith Boulden
79 Edgecombe Drive
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From:David Scheer
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Cc:"Jim Schulte"
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence zoning height amendment
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 10:28:16 AM
Hello Kristina-
I'm writing to ask about a particular case of special importance to our neighborhood that may be
affected by the proposed fence zoning height amendment.
There is currently a 6' wrought iron fence at 134 Edgecombe Dr. on the front property line. This
fence was erected two years ago through a concerted effort by a group of neighbors, with the
cooperation of the property owners and properly permitted by the city. It was erected because the
property attracted crowds on weekends and especially holidays like July 4 and July 24 because the
property is vacant and has a view of the city. These crowds were an extreme hazard and nuisance to
neighbors, starting brush fires that threatened homes, leaving huge amounts of trash, playing loud
music and blocking the street. Since the fence was erected, these problems have been largely
eliminated. The neighborhood believes that keeping this fence is essential to our safety and well-
being.
My question has to do with whether the new amendment will cause this fence to have to be taken
down. Is the proposed amendment going to be retroactive? Will this fence's permit be revoked or
not renewed under the amendment?
Given that the vote on this amendment is imminent, I would greatly appreciate a response at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
David Scheer, Chair
Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council
www.chnc-slc.org
council@chnc-slc.org
From:Vanja Watkins
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 1:28:21 PM
Dear Ms. Gilmore,
As a 55 year resident on Edgecombe Drive, I would like to comment about the Fence Height Zoning Amendment.
My home is directly across the street from 134 E. Edgecombe Drive which is and always has been a vacant lot. Over
the years, I have seen changes in the way this property is regarded. Until a few years ago people who stopped and
parked to admire the view have been respectful and have caused no problems in the neighborhood.
Sadly there has been a marked change in the behavior of viewers at this site within the last several years. At first
neighbors were willing to pick up trash and litter left behind by people admiring the view, but gradually the problem
has expanded far beyond litter. Our quiet neighborhood has been subjected to excess garbage, noise, parties, street
games at odd hours, lewd behavior, increased traffic that often causes snarls on our narrow street, and of course
illegal parking and trespassing onto private property in spite of signs posted by our city. People ignore signs!
What a great relief we experienced when the attractive and necessary 6 ft. metal fence was installed to help prevent
some, but not all, of these problems. Some neighbors would have preferred a solid fence, regular police patrols, a
regular route by city parking officers with power to issue tickets, a gate to prohibit non-resident traffic after 10 p m.,
or other similar measures to prevent the perplexing problems on this street that also impacted the entire
neighborhood. But we were pleased to begin to solve our problems with the installation of a fence for which many
neighbors willingly and generously contributed— and with the property owner’s agreement.
Now to have this single, simple step for improvement possibly denied to our neighborhood is a huge
disappointment. Please do not let this happen because of a solitary viewpoint not representative of the many who
live here.
Thank you for your serious consideration of a respectful, law-abiding and usually friendly neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Vanja Watkins
123 Edgecombe Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah
From:Lynne Cartwright
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence and screen at 134 Edgecombe Drive
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:46:29 PM
“The City Council has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to
remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences and to define
instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right.”
Instituting a fence height restriction primarily to target a security fence and itsscreen on 134 Edgecombe Drive doesn’t make sense.
1. Ensign Downs has its own CCRs to address issues regarding privacy, househeight, etc. For a quasi-governmental body to step in and restrict that fence isoverreach.
2. The charm of the development is its eclectic nature. Mandating uniform fenceheight would destroy that. We’ve all moved beyond the “little boxes on the hillside”aesthetic.
3. The large majority of the homeowners have “voted” by contributing to the fenceconstruction and periodic maintenance. The group went through the city’s processto secure permission for the fence. They want this fence as a security measure. Oneperson has requested this change against the wishes of virtually all the rest of theneighbors. The neighbors on Edgecombe Drive are fully in favor of the fence and itsscreening.
4. Before the fence, that open space was an “attractive nuisance” that collected notjust trash but hazardous waste (dirty diapers, used needles, used condoms, forsome examples), creating a neighborhood problem. It also attracted random non-compliant traffic through Ensign Downs, especially at night, making it unsafe forresidents to walk their own neighborhood. The less barrier that fence provides, themore it attracts these problems.
I have lived at 202 E. South Sandrun Road since May 1955. I hope to live here until Idie. But disallowing the security fence at 134 Edgecombe decreases my security aswell as introduces hazards into the area.
--Deon Freed via my daughter's email since I don't use email.
From:Maggie Probst
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Date:Friday, September 11, 2020 7:46:30 AM
Dear Ms. Gilmore,
As a resident of the Capitol Hill neighborhood, I am writing you express my concern over this
amendment as it relates to the fence on 134 Edgecombe Drive. I have driven Edgecombe almost
daily for 13 years and witnessed the traffic on the street increase dramatically over the course of
time. Along with the traffic came all the nuisances of noise and trash, etc. that plagued our
neighborhood. Since the fence has been erected on the property, the traffic has significantly
decreased, and the result has been a safer, quieter residential neighborhood. This instance seems
precisely why the fence height variance exists, and it works! I strongly urge that the special
exception process for over height fences not be changed.
Maggie Probst
907 Dartmoor Way
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
From:Ingo and Kathy Titze
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence on 134 Edgecombe
Date:Saturday, September 12, 2020 3:21:12 PM
I would like to add my concern for the removal of the fence and screens that have been, in my
opinion, a necessity for the safety of the street due to unprecedented accumulation of cars and
trash at late hours and daytime hours. There is no limit to the worry from the residents and
traffic congestion in this area. Putting up the fence and screens are the only things that deter
onlookers since the police can not be there every minute. However, I believe that if some
tickets were issued, the word would get around and also act as a deterrent.
Thank you for your time and help in this matter.
Kathy Titze
56 E. Dorchester Drive
.SLC, UT 84103
From:Jim Schulte
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Date:Friday, September 11, 2020 11:39:20 AM
Regarding Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-0511
Kristina,
I wanted to provide some additional context for some of the comments you are receiving from
residents of our neighborhood regarding the vacant lot at 134 Edgecombe. Some of them are under
the impression that the zone change itself could cause the removal of the fence. I understand from
your comments in response that the fence could remain as an existing non-conforming
use/improvement. While I appreciate that perspective, the existence of our fence is certainly more
“fragile” with the proposed zone change as it does not recognize and provide an avenue of approval
for the unique circumstances of a location like 134 Edgecombe that can benefit from a special
exception to the fence height ordinance. We are continuing to work as a neighborhood to improve
the still very destructive behavior that comes with excessive all night visitation and one
recommendation that has been highly vetted and approved by the neighborhood is a 4’ screen. It’s
not clear whether that would be allowed under our current special exception. If this zone change
occurs we would lose the ability to apply for an amendment to our prior approval.
Please add language to the proposed zoning amendment that will provide a path for the City to
evaluate further existing permit amendments and new special exceptions for lots that that can
demonstrate adverse conditions that warrant such an exception such as 134 Edgecombe.
Thank you.
James Schulte
Capitol Hill Resident
From:Rhonda Devereaux
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zoning ordinance change on fence height
Date:Monday, September 21, 2020 1:16:45 PM
Kristina,
I am hopeful that you are able to take my comment into consideration regarding the proposed removal of
‘Special Exceptions’ for fence heights. I have a personal beef with the removal of the exceptions clause,
being I live on Edgecombe Dr, just a couple of houses away from the empty nuisance lot at 134E
Edgecombe Dr. I am sure you have already heard from others the saga of the criminal and nuisance activity
on that lot and our community working together to try to minimize the disruption to our neighborhood. The
fence has helped a ton. The trial of additional placement of a fabric to reduce the view while seated in a car
in the no parking zone seemed promising. Seems crazy to reverse the progress we have made.
But just as important as this issue is with us, I think the MESSAGE you are sending with the proposed
removal of ‘special exceptions’ is very alarming. We have a serious problem with this lot. And as special as
I’d like to think we are, I bet there are other communities facing similar issues. As a community, we tried the
usual avenues to address it. Yet, it only became worse. We have been told repeatedly that there aren’t
enough personnel (police officers, ticketing officers, etc) to respond quick enough to make a difference. So
as a community, we formulated a plan to try to fix this problem WITHIN the confines of the law AND at our
own expense. This has resulted in a reduction of crime, nuisance garbage, fires and calls to the police
department, parking enforcement and the property owner. Win/win situation, don’t you think?
Now there is a push to reduce abandon the special permits due to aesthetic concerns (evidently one
complaint) and the laborious process the permits require? This would be simply volleying the problem back
to the police and parking enforcement, who we already know have too much on their plate, not to mention
a slap in the face to our community for trying to rectify a very frustrating and dangerous problem.
Until the City can adequately address and rectify the mess of this open lot, I believe that
reversing/eliminating special permits is in no-one’s interest. This could crush the future legal efforts of
communities banding together to resolve an issue when their leaders can’t.
I thank you you for the consideration of my comments.
Rhonda Devereaux
88E Edgecombe Dr
SLC, UT 84103
Merrick
Voicemail-- Does not support removing the special exception to allow over-height fences. They do not
feel that 4’ is enough to secure kids and a dog in the front yard.
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
City Department Review
Comments
Planning Staff Note: In general, the proposed changes do not directly impact most other City
departments. When routing the proposal, staff also sent the request to review to the Parks and
Public Lands Division. The request could impact their future park and recreation planning effort
but did any comments or concerns.
Transportation: No concerns.
Engineering: No concerns.
Public Utilities: No comments provided.
Building Services (Zoning): No concerns.
Building Services (Fire): No concerns.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
January 13, 2021
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
January 13, 2021, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members
will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings
can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning
Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general
comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-01132021
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 9, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Maven Lofts Design Review & Planned Development at approximately 156 East 900 South -
Joe Jacoby, representing Jacoby Architects, has submitted applications to the city for Design
Review and a Planned Development to construct an addition that would create 57 new residential
units located at approximately 156 E 900 South. The proposal is for a 4 -story building that will be
located roughly on the same footprint as the existing building. The applicant is requesting Design
Review approval to allow for an additional 15 FT of building height, for a total building height of
approximately 45 FT. Through the Planned Development process, the applicant is requesting to
decrease the front, rear, and corner side yard setbacks for the second, third, and fourth stories of the
building. The exterior wall of the prop osed upper stories is slightly stepped back from the exterior wall
of the existing building, which is located right at the property line. The CC zoning district requires a
front and corner side yard setback of 15’ and a rear yard setback of 10’. In order to utilize the ground
floor of the existing building, the applicant is also requesting to allow the rooftop garden areas to
count toward landscaping requirements. The property is located within the CC (Commercial
Corridor) zoning district in council district 5, represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Amy
Thompson at (385) 226 -9001 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00721
& PLNPCM2020-00722
2. Windsor Court Planned Development at approximately 1966 S Windsor Street - Mike
Spainhower, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a 17 -unit multi-family
dwelling at 1966 S. Windsor Street. The project would be built on an existing vacant lot. The total site
is 0.7 acres. The Planned Development is needed to address a modification to the front yard setback
and landscape buffers. The subject property is located in the RMF -35 zoning district and within
Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (385) 226 -8499
or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020 -00727
3. Village at North Station Building D Design Review at approximately 1925 W North Temple –
Michael Batt, representing the property owner, is seeking Design Revie w approval to modify a front
setback requirement for a proposed building located at approximately 1925 W North Temple. The
applicant is requesting to modify the maximum 5' front yard setback requirement due to the location
of a high voltage power line alon g Orange Street. They are requesting increased front yard setback
so that the front of the building is a required minimum safe distance from the power line. Modifications
to the front yard setback can be approved through the Design Review process. The subject property
is located within the TSA-MUEC-T (Transit Station Area District - Mixed Use Employment Center
Station – Transition) zoning district. The property is in Council District 1, represented by James
Rogers (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (385) 226-3835 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case
Number PLNPCM2020-00730
4. 9th Mixed-Use Multifamily Design Review – Eric Moran, on behalf of the property owner and
management company, RD Management, along with architects Peter Jacobsen and Jeff Byers of
The Richardson Design Group, are seeking Design Review approva l to redevelop the property
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 400 South and 900 East with residential and
commercial space. The proposal includes 264 residential units and approximately 16,000 square
feet of commercial space. The app licant is requesting Design Review by the Planning Commission
to allow for a façade length greater than 200 feet in the TSA-UN-C zoning district and for modifications
to the design standards in 21A.37. The property is located within Council District 4, re presented by
Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com )
Case number PLNPCM2020-00641
5. AT&T Wireless Communication Facility Conditional Use at approximately 1550 South 5600
West – A request by Brian Sieck of Smartlink for a new AT&T wireless communications facility with
an 80’ monopole and unmanned communication site located at approximately 1550 South 5600 West.
The proposed site would be located in the northwest corner of the parcel. The subject property is
located within the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district and is located within Council District 2,
represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00819
6. Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South – Salt Lake City has
received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group representing the property owner
of 810 East 800 South, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The
proposal would rezone the property located at a pproximately 810 East 800 South from R-2 (Single
and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and the Central Community Master Plan
Future Land Use map designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial . The
applicant anticipates developing the site with a two-story building with commercial on the first floor
and residential units on the second floor. The subject property is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family
Residential) and is located within Council District 5 represented by Darin Ma no (Staff contact: Sara
Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020 -00740
& PLNPCM2020-00741
7. Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at approximately 554 & 560 South 300 East - Salt Lake
City has received a request from Mariel Wirthlin, with The Associated Group and representing the
property owner of 554 and 560 South 300 East, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and
the zoning map. The proposal would rezone the properties located at approximately 554 and 560
South 300 East from RO (Residential Office) to RMU (Residential/Mixed Use) and amend the Central
Community Future Land Use Map from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Mixed Use. The
proposed Master Plan amendment to High Mixed Use and rezone to RMU is intended to allow retail
service uses on the property, in addition to office use. The subject property is zoned RO
(Residential Office) and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff
contact: Nannette Larsen at (385) 386-2761 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers
PLNPCM2020-00604 & PLNPCM2020-00712
8. Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment – A request by the City Council to amend the zoning
ordinance regulations to remove the special exception process that allows for over -height fences
(Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved
by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4’) in front
yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances
include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries and
manufacturing districts, public facilities and recrea tion facilities where a greater height is necessary
to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning
Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional
fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter
21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide.
(Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535 -7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00511
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-
meetings. 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.
Notice of Public Hearing
On Wednesday, January 13, 2021, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City
Council regarding the following petitions:
1. Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South
– Salt Lake City has received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Devel-
opment Group representing the property owner of 810 East 800 South, to
amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The pro-
posal would rezone the property located at approximately 810 East 800
South from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Busi-
ness) and the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map designa-
tion from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant
anticipates developing the site with a two-story building with commercial
on the first floor and residential units on the second floor. The subject prop-
erty is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and is located within
Council District 5 represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Sara Javoro-
nok at (385) 226-4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLN-
PCM2020-00740 & PLNPCM2020-007412.
2. Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment – A request by the City
Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the special
exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030)
and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and ap-
proved by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and
hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear
yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances include when
a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries
and manufacturing districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a
greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and
construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic
Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence,
wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments
proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt
Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilm-
ore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLN-
PCM2020-00511
The public hearing will begin at 5:30 p.m. via Webex. To participate go to:
http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-01132021
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Build-
ing. Commission Members will connect remotely. If you are interested in
watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the fol-
lowing platforms:
YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.
slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the
meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.
com.
DN0000000
Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 05:30 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of
time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the
meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson,
Amy Barry; Commissioners, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal
Young-Otterstrom. Commissioners Jon Lee, and Andres Paredes were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Nick
Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Amy Thompson, Senior Planner; Katia Pace, Principal
Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal
Planner; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Brenda Scheer, read the emergency proclamation for holding a remote meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 9, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 02:31
MOTION 02:46
Commissioner Young-Otterstrom moved to approve the December 9, 2020 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Lyon,
Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voting as
she was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 04:24
Chairperson Scheer informed the public of the long agenda and that there will be a break half-way through
the agenda.
Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 05:33
Michaela Oktay, Planning Director, stated she had nothing to report.
05:55
Maven Lofts Design Review & Planned Development at approximately 156 East 900 South - Joe
Jacoby, representing Jacoby Architects, has submitted applications to the city for Design Review and a
Planned Development to construct an addition that would create 57 new residential units located at
approximately 156 E 900 South. The proposal is for a 4-story building that will be located roughly on the
same footprint as the existing building. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for
an additional 15 FT of building height, for a total building height of approximately 45 FT. Through the
Planned Development process, the applicant is requesting to decrease the front, rear, and corner side
yard setbacks for the second, third, and fourth stories of the building. The exterior wall of the proposed
upper stories is slightly stepped back from the exterior wall of the existing building, which is located right
at the property line. The CC zoning district requires a front and corner side yard setback of 15’ and a rear
yard setback of 10’. In order to utilize the ground floor of the existing building, the applicant is also
Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 8
The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following:
• Clarification on whether the RO zone will be eliminated
MOTION 3:20:56
Commissioner Lyson stated Based on the information in the staff report I move that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed master plan amendment, as
presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00712.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION 3:22:40
Commissioner Lyon stated, Additionally, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that
the City Council approve the proposed zoning map amendment, as presented in PLNPCM2020-
00604.
Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Ottertrom voted
“Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
3:23:46
Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment – A request by the City Council to amend the zoning
ordinance regulations to remove the special exception process that allows for over-height fences
(Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by
right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards
and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances include
when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries and manufacturing
districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect pub lic
safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the
Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height
as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning
districts throughout Salt Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at
(801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00511
Krissy Gilmore, 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 positive
recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on unique conditions
• Clarification on how fence height is measured when a property has an abrupt grade change
• Clarification on whether a property owner can build a 10-foot fence around a backyard swimming
pool or tennis court
PUBLIC HEARING 3:38:39
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Cindy Cromer – Stated when you’re dealing with Historic properties which were built prior to the City’s
zoning ordinance, you ought to be able to repurpose fencing.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 9
Jim Schulte – Stated he requests special exceptions that addresses special circumstances where some
additional fencing or screening can address the public nuisance, and criminal activity that isn’t compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request.
Judi Short, Sugar House Land Use Chairperson – Stated her support of the request.
David Fernandez - Stated his support of the request. Also, he asked whether it has been determined
whether vinyl or plastic is considered a durable material.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:
• Clarification on what constitutes a durable material
• Clarification on whether there are any limitations of materials
• Whether a multi-family mixed use building is considered a non-residential use
• Vacant property that is attracting nuisance
MOTION 4:05:07
Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented,
and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00511
Fence Height Zoning Text Amendment. With the additional recommendation:
1. That Planning Staff draft a provision to the ordinance allowing for a fence height allowing
up to 6-feet in front yards of vacant lots without existing structures, which non-conforming
fences must be removed when the vacant lot is developed and;
2. To add a maximum height of up to 8-feet to residential and non-residential over height
allowances section
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 4:07:59
5. MAILING LIST
Name Address City State Zip
Trolley Square Ventures, LLC 630 E South Temple St Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
SK Hart ST, LLC 630 E South Temple St Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:August 17, 2021
RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Nielsen Estates at
833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200 North
PLNPCM2018-00877
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map for two single-family properties at
833 West Hoyt Place (R-1/5,000) and 834 West 200 North (R-1/7,000). The proposed zoning designation
for both properties is SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential). Though there is not a specific
development proposal associated with the rezone request, it is anticipated the subject properties will be
combined and a subdivision created for development.
A concept plan includes preserving the existing single-family home at 834 West 200 North and
development of a twin home and four attached single-family homes (all for-sale at market rate) located
primarily on the vacant 833 West Hoyt Place parcel. Twin homes and attached single-family homes are not
allowed in the R-1/5,000 or R-1/7,000 zones but the proposed SR-3 zoning designation allows for both.
The conceptual plan also includes a 20’ driveway west of the existing home to serve the development to the
northern property. It should be noted the conceptual plan could change and is not tied to the rezone
application. The Council’s role is to determine if the proposed SR-3 zoning designation is appropriate for
the parcels.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendments.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: August 17, 2021
Set Date: August 17, 2021
Public Hearing: September 7, 2021
Potential Action: September 21, 2021
Page | 2
Vicinity map with subject parcels outlined in red
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Is the Council supportive of the proposed rezone?
2.The Council may wish to ask if the developer considered including affordable housing units in
the proposed development.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Hoyt Place is a private cul-de-sac and development is limited to no more than 30 homes without secondary
fire access. An adjacent Hoyt Place property owner expressed interest in a project that would complement
the concept plan for the subject parcels. Both property owners attempted to work with each other and other
Hoyt Place property owners on secondary access to the project, and on terms related to shared driveways
or utilities. The property owners have not come to terms over the past two years so the applicant for this
rezone petition would like to move forward with the project, independently if necessary.
The proposed SR-3 zoning designation allows development on a similar scale to what is permitted under
current zoning but requires smaller lot areas which would allow somewhat increased density. It also allows
attached homes, while current zoning does not. Tables comparing current and proposed zoning standards
are below. For additional zoning standard detail see pages 38-46 of the Administration’s transmittal.
Page | 3
Key Use Comparisons
Single-Family
(detached)
Single-Family
(attached)
Twin
Homes
Planned Development
(minimum area)
R-1-5,000 Permitted No No 10,000 sf
R-1-7,000 Permitted No No 14,000 sf
SR-3 Permitted Permitted Permitted 4,000 sf
Key Zoning Standards Comparison
Lot Area Max
Height
Front
Yard
Side Yard Corner
Yard
Rear
Yard
Lot Coverage
R-1-5,000 5,000 sf 28’ or 20’
flat roof
20’8’ and 10’20’25’40%
R-1-7,000 7,000 sf 28’ or 20’
flat roof
20’6’ and 10’20’25’40%
SR-3 1,500 sf
(attached)
2,000 sf
(detached)
28’ or 20’
flat roof
10’4’ (detached)10’15’60% detached
70% attached
Tables courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division
As shown in the image below, properties near the subject parcels are predominantly single-family.
However, much of Hoyt Place is undeveloped and could include single-family attached and twin homes
under existing SR-3 zoning.
Zoning map of properties surrounding subject parcels
Page | 4
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified two key considerations which are summarized below. For the complete analysis
see pages 21-24 of the Administration’s transmittal.
Key Consideration #1: Compatibility with City and neighborhood master plans
Planning staff found the proposed rezone meets the following recommendations found in Plan Salt Lake:
•Maintain neighborhood stability and character
•Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives
•Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land
•Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth
•Increase the number of medium density housing types and options
•Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate
•Make walking and cycling viable, safe, and convenient transportation options in all areas of the
City
•Having a public transit stop within ¼ mile of all residents
•Minimize impact of car emissions
Under the conceptual planned development, the existing home at 834 West 200 North would be preserved.
Planning staff recommended the applicant enter into a development agreement with the City to ensure
preservation of the home and its architecture. However, the Planning Commission did not forward that
recommendation to the City Council.
The subject parcels are included in the 800 West Station Stable Area section of the North Temple
Boulevard Plan. This area envisions “Infill development such as twin homes and attached single-family
dwellings, primarily in mid-block areas that are currently underdeveloped or under-utilized.” Planning
staff found the proposed rezone would accomplish this.
The future land use map for the area found in Attachment D (pages 36-37) of the Administration’s
transmittal includes the subject parcels in “areas where little change is expected or desired or where the
current zoning allows for desired land uses and intensities.” It is Planning’s opinion impact of the
proposed rezone would be minor and would allow the subject parcels uses and density in line with other
FR-3 zoned parcels on Hoyt Place.
The Northwest Master Plan identifies development potential on Hoyt Place. Rezoning the subject parcels
to SR-3 retains an option for the property to be accessed from 200 North and helps accomplish the
objective to encourage housing on Hoyt Place. The Northwest Master Plan future land use map shows the
subject parcels as low density residential, bordering medium density residential. Planning staff stated the
proposed rezone is consistent with the map.
Key Consideration #2: Potential impacts on adjacent properties
Planning staff identified two impacts to consider when evaluating a potential rezone of the subject parcels:
•Would any new development be compatible with the scale of existing development?
•Would extending the SR-3 to 200 North be appropriate for the desired development?
As shown in the zoning map above, the parcels are surrounded by SR-3 on Hoyt Place and R-1/7,000 on
200 North. Planning staff stated rezoning the parcels would allow them to be developed in character with
current and potential development on Hoyt Place. The applicant’s intention to preserve the home on 200
North would maintain the character of that block.
Planning noted the SR-3 zoning designation is typically intended for properties located within block
interiors. They also cited several locations where the zone is extended to a major street (500 South, 300
Page | 5
West, 500 North, 400 North, 200 North, California Avenue, and Cheyenne). This is generally to allow
access to properties which would otherwise be landlocked. While that is not the case with this proposed
rezone, it would provide for a second access point to properties on Hoyt Place. Planning staff recommends
primary vehicular access be from Hoyt Place.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 47-49 of the Administration’s transmittal)
outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Planning staff found proposed zoning map amendment complies with applicable standards. Please see the
Planning Commission staff report for full details.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• November 2018 Project notice provided to community councils and organizations as well as
nearby property owners and residents.
• July 2019-September 2020 Project on hold as applicant attempted to coordinate development
efforts with neighboring property owners.
• September 2020 Updated notice provided to Fairpark Community Council, other recognized
community organizations, and nearby property owners.
• March 2021 Planning Commission public hearing notice sent to nearby property owners.
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing March 24, 2021. Two people spoke in support of
the proposed rezone and one spoke in opposition. The Planning Commission forwarded a
unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed rezone.
833 W Hoyt Place & 834 W 200 North
•Requested Zone Amendment:
•R-1-5,000 (833 W Hoyt Place) to SR-3
•R-1-7,000 (834 W 200 North) to SR-3
Recommendation:
•Unanimous recommendation for approval
from Planning Commission with
conditions listed in Staff report
Nielsen Estates Rezone
833 W Hoyt Place834 W 200 North
Currently Zoned R-1-7000 Currently Zoned R-1-5000
Property Facts
•Northwest Community Plan
•North Temple Boulevard Plan
•Current uses: Single-family home & vacant land
• .52 acres total (.24 acres 833 W Hoyt) (.28 acres 834 W 200 North)
Nielsen Estates Rezone
•Intended for future Subdivision and Planned
Development to include:
‒Preservation of existing home
‒Twin -home
‒Four single-family attached homes
‒Driveway from 200 North if needed
(access preferred from Hoyt)
R -1 -5000 & R-1 -7000 To SR-3 Rezone
Potential future
driveway or
sidewalk
-Concept Only-
Key Consideration: Master Plan Compatibility
•North Temple Boulevard Plan
‒Allow for appropriate residential development on undeveloped
mid-block parcels-met
•Northwest Master Plan
•Encourage private [housing] development along Hoyt Place-met
•Plan Salt Lake
‒Maintain neighborhood stability and character-met
‒Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land-met
‒Increase the number of medium density housing types and
options-met
‒Have a public transit stop with ¼ mile of all residents-met
R -1 -5000 & R-1 -7000 To SR-3 Rezone
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended
approval for the rezone with the following conditions:
•Recording a development agreement for the protection of the
single-family use and architecture of the existing home at 834 W
200 North
•Access to any future development on the property should be
sought first from Hoyt Place
Nielsen Estates Rezone
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2018-00877- Zoning Map Amendment for Nielsen Estates at 833 W Hoyt
Place and 834 W 200 North
STAFF CONTACT: Eric Daems, Senior Planner, eric.daems@slcgov.com, 801-535-7236
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve
the proposed zoning map amendment.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Sattar Tabriz, representing property owner J&S Property Development LLC, is petitioning to
amend the zoning map for two single-family properties at 833 W Hoyt Place (R-1-5,000) and
834 W 200 North (R-1-7,000). Under the proposal, both would be rezoned to SR-3 (Special
Development Pattern Residential). Although a specific development plan is not part of this
proposal, the rezone is intended to allow for a future Planned Development to include the
preservation of the home at 834 W 200 North, a twin home, and four single-family attached
homes. The properties are located within the Northwest Community Master Plan as well as the
North Temple Boulevard Plan areas.
Currently, the only development on the property is a single-family home at 834 W 200 North.
This project was first proposed in 2018 and included accompanying Subdivision and Planned
Development applications. The proposal has since been revised and delayed for more than two
July 7, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Jul 14, 2021 15:02 MDT)
07/14/2021
07/14/2021
years as the property owner has attempted to work with surrounding property owners on unique
development challenges for this and surrounding properties.
Hoyt Place is a dead-end private street. As such, development is limited to 30 homes or less
without secondary fire access. City Staff has encouraged dialogue between property owners
along Hoyt Place to work together to find solutions for cohesive and complimentary design that
maximizes development potential and that would result in a better project. However, property
owners have not been able to come to terms throughout the last two and a half years and the
applicant for this rezone is ready to move the project forward independently if necessary.
To do so, the property will need vehicular access to 200 North. Rezoning the entirety of both
properties would allow for the desired medium density housing along the northern portion of the
property as well as vehicular access from 200 North. Even though the applicant is pursuing SR-3
zoning for both properties and access from 200 North, he has expressed continued hope to reach
an agreement for access from Hoyt Place at some point.
The intent of the North Temple Boulevard Plan and the Northwest Community Master Plan
support the development of interior portions of city blocks with medium density housing, located
near transit stations. Rezoning the property to SR-3 zone will help accomplish this intent.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Notice of the project and request for comments were sent to the Chair of
Fairpark Community Council and other applicable recognized community organizations first in
October of 2018 and then again in September of 2020. The project experienced a long delay as
the applicant attempted to better coordinate development efforts with neighboring properties and
to secure access from Hoyt Place, in accordance with City recommendations.
A public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on March 24, 2021. The Planning
Commission discussed the request and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council.
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Planning Commission Record- March 24, 2021
a) Hearing Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda and Minutes
4) Original Petition
5) Mailing List
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION-MARCH 24, 2021
A) HEARING NOTICE
B) STAFF REPORT
C) AGENDA AND MINUTES
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
5. MAILING LABELS
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ____ of 2021
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to two parcels of property located at 833 West Hoyt Place
and 834 West 200 North Street to rezone the parcels from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential
District and R-1/7,000 Single- Family Residential District, respectively, to SR-3 Special
Development Pattern Residential District.)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to two parcels of property located at
833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200 North Street to rezone the parcels from R-1/5,000
Single-Family Residential District and R-1/7,000 Single- Family Residential District,
respectively, to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to petition
number PLNPCM2018-00877.
WHEREAS, Sattar Tabriz, on behalf of the property owner, J & S Property
Development, LLC, submitted a petition number PLNPCM2018-00877 (the “rezone petition”)
to rezone two parcels of property of property located at 833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200
North Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District and R-1/7,000 Single- Family
Residential District, respectively, to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the underlying R-1/7,000 and R-1/5,000 zoning, the parcels
are further zoned with an overlay zoning designation of Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay.
WHEREAS, at its March 24, 2021 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
held a public hearing, had discussion, and voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the
Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) on the rezone petition; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that
adopting this ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning map to change the underlying
zoning as set forth herein is in the City’s best interest; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to retain the overlay designation of the Airport
Flight Path Protection Overlay, and, nothing contained herein should be construed to remove that
existing designation.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
Section 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the
Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby
is amended to reflect that the parcel located 833 West Hoyt Place (Tax ID No. 08-35-406-019-
0000), more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference,
is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development
Pattern Residential District.
Section 2. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the
Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby
is amended to reflect that the parcel located 834 West 200 North Street (Tax ID No. 08-35-406-
018-0000), more particularly described in Exhibit “B” described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto
and incorporated by reference, is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to
SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been published in
accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of __________, 20____.
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
_______________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ______________________________.
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved. _____Vetoed.
_________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 20_____
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
May 27, 2021
Exhibit “A”
Legal description of the property
Tax ID No. 08-35-406-019-0000
BEG 296.7 FT W FR NE COR OF LOT 8, BLK 70, PLAT C, SLC SUR; W 67.95 FT; S 157 FT; E 67.95
FT; N 157 FT TO BEG. 5529-14595581-2297
Exhibit “B”
Legal description of the property
Tax ID No. 08-35-406-018-0000
BEG 296.7 FT W FR SE COR OF LOT 1, BLK 70, PLAT C, SLC SUR; W 67.95 FT; N 173 FT; E 67.95
FT; S 173 FT TO BEG. 5529-14596484-2069
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2018-0877- Nielsen Estates Zone Amendments
October 2018 Petition received by Ashley Scarff in the Planning Division
November 2018 Notice of the project was provided to community councils and
organizations and to nearby property owners and residents
December 2018 Project routed for department review
April 2020 Petition transferred to Eric Daems in the Planning Division
July 2019-Sept 2020 Project was on hold or going through various revisions as Applicant
attempted to better coordinate development efforts with neighboring
properties and to secure access from Hoyt Place, in accordance with City
recommendations
September 2020 Updated notifications were provided to Fairpark Community Council,
other recognized community organizations, and nearby property owners
October 2020- City Staff reviewed proposal and various alternatives presented
March 2021
March 2021 Notice of public hearing sent to nearby property owners and residents
March 24, 2021 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public
hearing. The Commission voted to send a positive recommendation to the
City Council.
2. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
28
ATTACHMENT J – PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities,
related to the proposed project since the application was submitted:
• November 2018 – Notice of the project was provided to the Fairpark Community Council, other
recognized community organizations, as well as property owners and residents within 300 feet
of the proposal.
• July 2019-July 2020- The project was on hold or going through various revisions in attempt to
work with neighboring properties for joint access from Hoyt Place
• September 1, 2020- Updated notifications of the project were provided to the
Fairpark Community Council, other recognized community organization, as well as
property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal.
No recognized organizations requested the item to be discussed during a community council meeting.
The following comment was received from a neighbor on 9/17/20, however it should be noted that the
comment was in response to the proposed Planned Development, Subdivision, and Zone Amendment
considered as one proposal:
Neighbor expressed concern that the southernmost units would look directly into her rear yard. She
felt they would create a loss of privacy for her and that would result in diminishing property values.
She would not like the lot line to be adjusted between the property on Hoyt and 200 N.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
Public hearing notice mailed on March 18, 2021
Public hearing notice posted on March 18, 2021
Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve on March 18, 2021
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes
March 24, 2021
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
March 24, 2021 at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion )
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will
connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can
still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning
Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the m eeting or provide general
comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-032421
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at S LC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 10, 2021
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
CONSENT AGENDA
1. 1807 S 1900 E Time Extension Request - Susan Klinker, property owner, is requesting for a one -
year time extension of approval for the conditional use approval for a detached 2-story accessory
dwelling unit (ADU) at 1807 South 1900 East. The applicant has indicated that additional time is
needed due to delays related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The Conditional Use was approved
by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2020. The subject property is located in the R -1/7,000
(Single-Family Residential) zoning district within Council District 6, represented b y Dan Dugan. (Staff
contact: Linda Mitchell at (385) 386-2763 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) Case Number:
PLNPCM2019-01065
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 1583 E Stratford Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments - Salt Lake City received a request
from Erin Hoffman with Stratford Investment Properties, the property owner, to amend the Sugar
House Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at approximately 1583 East Stratford
Ave. The proposal would rezone the entire property from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family
Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map
from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business. The purpose of the amendments is to
convert the existing building from multi -family residential to office. The property is located within
Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at 385 -386-2761 or
nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case Numbers: PLNPCM2020-000393; PLNPCM2020-000394
2. Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 742 S. Navajo St - Andrea Palmer, property owner
and Modal representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a detached accessory dwelling
unit located in the rear yard of the subject property located at 742 S. Navajo St. The applicant is
proposing a 425-square foot unit. The property is located within the R -1/5000 (Single-Family
Residential) zoning district and is within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff
contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Number:
PLNPCM2021-00013
3. Nielsen Estates Rezone 833 W Hoyt Place and 834 W 200 North - Sattar Tabriz, representing
property owner J&S Property Development LLC, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from R-1-
5,000 and R-1-7,000 (Single-family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern
Residential) at the above-listed addresses. The applicant would like to rezone the properties for a
future Planned Development that would include the preservation of the existing home and add six
new single-family attached homes. However, the request is not tied to a development proposal.
Although the applicant has requested the property be rezoned all the way to 200 North, consideration
to have the property around the existing home remain zoned R -1-7,000 may be given if access to the
remainder of the property can be secured from Hoyt Place. The property is located within Council
District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at (385) 226 -3187 or
eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2018-00877
WORK SESSION
1. Zoning 101 Training - Planning staff will provide a zoning 101 training for the commission and the
public.
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-
meetings. 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.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at approximately 5:45 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for
a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and
presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson,
Amy Barry; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon,
Andres Paredes, Crystal Young-Otterstrom and Sara Urquhart.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Director; Wayne Mills, Planning
Manager; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Linda Mitchell, Principal Planner;
Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; Eric Daems, Senior Planner;
Marlene Rankins; Administrative Secretary; Aubrey Clark, Administrative Secretary.
Commissioner Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation for holding a virtual meeting.
Planning Manager Wayne Mills explained the meeting instructions.
APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 10, 2021 MEETING MINUTES AND CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION
Commissioner Urquhart moved to approve the March 10, 2021 meeting minutes as well as the
Time Extension Request (listed in the Consent Agenda).
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bell, Barry, Paredes, Hoskins,
Young-Otterstrom, Lyon, Lee, Bachman and Urquhart voted “Aye”. The motion passed to approve
the meeting minutes as well as the 1807 S 1900 E Time Extension Request.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Commissioner Scheer reported that she had nothing to report.
Commissioner Barry reported that she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Planning Manager Wayne Mills reported that there are technically difficulties and how to proceed.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 2
CONSENT AGENDA
1807 S 1900 E Time Extension Request - Susan Klinker, property owner, is requesting for a one-year
time extension of approval for the conditional use approval for a detached 2-story accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) at 1807 South 1900 East. The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed due to delays
related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The Conditional Use was approved by the Planning
Commission on April 22, 2020. The subject property is located in the R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential)
zoning district within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Linda Mitchell at (385)
386-2763 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2019-01065
MOTION
One-year time extension approved by the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1583 E Stratford Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments - Salt Lake City received a request from
Erin Hoffman with Stratford Investment Properties, the property owner, to amend the Sugar House Master
Plan and the zoning map for a property located at approximately 1583 East Stratford Ave. The proposal
would rezone the entire property from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to CN
(Neighborhood Commercial) and amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Medium Density
Residential to Neighborhood Business. The purpose of the amendments is to convert the existing building
from multi-family residential to office. The property is located within Council District 7, represented by
Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at 385-386-2761 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case
Numbers: PLNPCM2020-00393; PLNPCM2020-00394
Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, reviewed the information in this staff report (located in the case file).
She stated that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to
the City Council for the Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments. She stated that it was found by
Planning Staff in the report that the proposed amendments do not meet the intent of the Master Plan.
She reviewed the site location, the rezoning request and the Master Plan.
Melanie Clark, Presenter, reviewed the application history and stated legal standards for the master plan
and zoning. She cited Utah case law that talked about how public clamor is not a sufficient basis for land
use decisions. She presented the plan to show what kind of business they are purposing to occupy the
space. She stated that the property does not currently apply to the standards of affordable housing and
that there is a need for commercial nodes in the area to meet the intent of the Sugarhouse Master Plan.
Commissioner Scheer opened the meeting to the commission’s questions.
Commission and Staff discussed and made clarifications on:
• Whether the property is owner occupied.
• Whether the Staff initially recommended commercial neighborhood rezoning of the property.
• The definition and location of a commercial node on the Sugarhouse Master Plan.
Commissioner Scheer opened the meeting to the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Brenda Koga – in opposition to the petition.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 3
Judi Short – Sugarhouse Neighborhood Council member - in opposition to the petition. Stated the
remodel started prior to rezoning and continued even after the stop order was placed.
Zachary Dussault – in opposition to the petition. Stated he feels it should be zoned RMU35.
Debbie Mayo – in opposition to the petition.
Aric Sharp – in opposition to the petition.
Cindy Cromer – in opposition to the petition.
Planning Manager Wayne Mills read an email from Lance Vanderhoof - in opposition to the petition.
Nannette Laser held up her phone to let Tim Krueger comment - in opposition to the petition.
Seeing no one else wished to speak, Commissioner Scheer closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Commissioner Crystal Young-Otterstrom stated, Based on the information in the staff report I
move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the proposed master
plan amendment, as presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00394: Additionally, I move that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the proposed zoning map
amendment, as presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00393.
Commissioner Carolynn Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Bell, Barry, Paredes,
Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lyon, Lee, Bachman and Urquhart voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously with a recommendation going forward to City Council to deny the request.
Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 742 S. Navajo St - Andrea Palmer, property owner and
Modal representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit
located in the rear yard of the subject property located at 742 S. Navajo St. The applicant is proposing a
425-square foot unit. The property is located within the R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning
district and is within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist
at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2021-00013
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the information in the staff report (located in the case file.)
Planning Staff finds the project generally meets the applicable standards of approval and therefore
recommends the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use for the ADU.
Commissioner Scheer asked for clarification on the on-street parking.
Andrea Palmer, representing property owner Jessica Andrew and Modal Living, presented the site
concept. She stated that the property owner is not very interested in renting out the ADU but having it be
for use by guests and family members.
Commissioner Scheer opened the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
Zachary Dussault - in favor of the petition.
Seeing no one else wished to speak, Commissioner Scheer closed the public hearing.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 4
MOTION
Commissioner Amy Barry stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
approve petition PLNPCM2021-00013.
Commissioner Maurine Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioner Adrienne Bell recused
herself. Commissioners Barry, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lyon, Lee, Bachman and
Urquhart voted “Aye”. The motion passed with 8 “Ayes” and 1 recusal.
Nielsen Estates Rezone 833 W Hoyt Place and 834 W 200 North - Sattar Tabriz, representing property
owner J&S Property Development LLC, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from R-1- 5,000 and R-
1-7,000 (Single-family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) at the above-listed
addresses. The applicant would like to rezone the properties for a future Planned Development that would
include the preservation of the existing home and add six new single-family attached homes. However,
the request is not tied to a development proposal. Although the applicant has requested the property be
rezoned all the way to 200 North, consideration to have the property around the existing home remain
zoned R-1-7,000 may be given if access to the remainder of the property can be secured from Hoyt
Place. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact:
Eric Daems at (385) 226-3187 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2018-00877
Eric Daems, Senior Planner, reviewed the information in the staff report (located in the case file). He
stated that planning staff recommends that the planning commission forward a positive recommendation
to the city council with the conditions listed in the staff report. He outlined the proposed requested rezone
amendment and key considerations to master plan compatibility.
The Commission and Staff discussed and made clarifications on:
• A future lot line adjustment or planned development
• Whether the condition to preserve the existing house can still be met if access is required via 200
North
Commissioner Scheer asked to hear from the applicant.
Sattar Tabriz, representing applicant, stated that they want the best development for the community and
the area. He commented on the long process the project has been through. He stated that home on the
property is on the national registry for historic housing and they are committed to preserving the home.
He commented on fire access, the driveway and property access.
Commissioner Scheer opened the meeting to the Commission for questions.
Commissioner Bell asked for clarification on whether the applicant was comfortable with the
recommendations and conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Scheer opened the meeting to the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
David Charbonneau – Spoke in favor of the petition but expressed concern that the property line
measurement is inaccurate.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 5
Pachuco Lautaro – Representing the Rose Park Brown Berets, opposed to the rezoning. He addressed
that rezoning, if approved, will increase the property tax and the rent of adjacent properties and impact
the whole community in general. He stated that the Master Plan is a fraud and not in the people’s interest
and the developments coming in are not affordable to the people who currently live in the neighborhood.
Zachary Dussault – in favor of the petition.
Planning Manager Wayne Mills read an email received from Jesse Anderson opposing the petition.
Planning Manager Wayne Mills clarified that Hoyt Place is a private street not a public street.
Commissioner Scheer closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to commissioners’ comments.
The Commission and Staff discussed the rezone including:
• Unresolved utility issues between the two developments
• Whether it would be appropriate to rezone without knowing the intention of the future Planned
Development or Subdivision for Hoyt Place
• Whether it is necessary for the project to be in keeping with the Master Plan goals of promoting
affordable housing
MOTION
Commissioner Adrienne Bell stated, Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the
information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Zoning Map amendments from R-1-
5,000 and R-1-7,000 to SR-3 for petition (PLNPCM2018-00877), subject to complying with the
conditions listed in the staff report:
Commissioner Matt Lyon seconded to approve the motion. Commissioners Bell, Barry, Paredes,
Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lyon, Lee, Bachman and Urquhart voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Zoning 101 Training - Planning staff will provide a zoning 101 training for the commission and the
public.
Nick Norris outlined that the State Legislature passed a law requiring the Commission members to have
4 hours of training. He outlined what the state codes are and what the Master Plan is and how it is
implemented.
Sara Urquhart asked for clarification on what qualifies as a historic district. Staff and Commissioners
identify the standards.
Commissioner Amy Barry asked for clarification on the term “design review”.
Staff and the Commission discussed approval processes.
Commissioner Scheer opened up discussion for when in person Planning Commission meetings will
resume. Nick Norris said he doesn’t think it will be too long before they can meet in person again. Possibly
3-6 months.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 6
The meeting adjourned at 8:49pm.
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
Petition PLNPCM2018-00877
June 12, 2020
Eric Daems, AICP
Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Corporation
Subject: Zone Amendment under active application
Project #PLNPCM2018-00877
Mr Daems:
We would like to propose the following changes to the active application for J&S Property
Development LLC Nielsen Estates Subdivision Zone Amendment Supplemental Document,
dated October 25, 2018:
Proposed Use of the Property
“The SR-3 zone will facilitate development of six single-family attached homes, each with a
minimum lot area of 1500 SF. Each home will have a dedicated attached single car garage
and area for an additional parking spot in front of the garage.”
Parcel Numbers
“The following parcels are proposed for zoning amendment:
1. The northerly 63ft of the parcel at 834 west 200 north with a parcel number of 08-35-
406-018-0000. This parcel is proposed to be zone SR-3.
2. The entire area of the parcel at 833 west Hoyt Place with a parcel number of 08-35-
406-019-0000. This parcel is proposed to be zone SR-3. The rest of the parcel will
remain as zone R-1-7000.
3. A 125SF portion of the parcel at 825 West Hoyt Place with a parcel number of 08-35-
406-022-0000. This area will be purchased for the development. It is currently zoned
as SR-3 and will remain as such.”
Respectfully,
WARD ENGINEERING GROUP
231 West 800 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Cc: Sattar Tabriz: Ward Engineering Group
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP
JOHN GRIFFITHS 1021 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
RODNEY & MERILEE SABINO LIVING TRUST
05/19/2020 1064 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
PAWPURR UT ALPHA, LLC 11257 S TRENT DR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095
ANTONIO J VALDEZ; MELODY A VALDEZ (JT)121 S JEREMY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
MIKE ORTHNER 1216 N 900 E BOUNTIFUL UT 84010
Current Occupant 150 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
WYNETHA BRIDGEWATER; JAKE LEE (JT)155 N 700 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
878-880 WEST 200 NORTH LLC 1590 N MANDALAY RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
GREGORIO VASQUEZ TELLEZ; ARMIDA BLANCAS
TELLEZ (JT)173 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 184 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 185 N WESTTEMPLE ST # 112 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
THOMAS E DEVROOM 213 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
JOSE SANCHEZ 216 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
DEAN A TRUJILLO; JENNIFER M TRUJILLO (JT)219 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 220 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
JOHN G STORRS 223 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MATT MERTLICH 228 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
SHIREL WOODCOX 229 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
APOLO T MAUAI; THELMA MAUAI (JT)230 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
SWW LV TRST 234 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 235 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
ARAM NASR 236 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 241 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
LM TR 246 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
EDWARD DEL RIO 246 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MARICRUZ L VARGAS 247 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
JENNIFER SIMPSON 250 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 251 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
BERNADETTE DESCHINE 257 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 258 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
JORDAN K GREENE; AMANDA MALLORY FOSTE
(JT)260 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
JASON S HARDELL 266 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
258N 900W, A SERIES OF RCJ PROPERTIES, LLC 267 E EAGLE RIDGE DR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054
Current Occupant 267 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116
SMITH FAMILY TRUST 10/29/2019 311 PARK VIEW CIR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010
ORSON T PORTER; MARISA L PORTER (JT)371 E RENA AVE MIDVALE UT 84047
795 WASATCH PROPERTIES, LLC 4122 S 500 W MURRAY UT 84123
LLB IRR TR 420 N 1200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
HOYT PLACE DEVELOPMENT LLC 628 N PUGSLEY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TANNER KNIGHT 696 E SPRUCE GLEN RD MURRAY UT 84107
J & S PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC 7318 S RACQUET CLUB DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121
OLSEN FAMILY TRUST 08/16/2017 805 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
MATHEW CODY BUNDERSON; TARYN ANNA
BUNDERSON (JT)810 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
GUILLERMO ENRIQUEZ; MARIA A ENRIQUEZ (TC)815 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 819 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
DURAEL SPIGHT; JESSICA SPIGHT (JT)821 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 823 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 824 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 825 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116
SHEA M MEARS; MICHAEL ORTHNER (JT)826 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
BECKY ROBINSON 827 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 829 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 830 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 831 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 833 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 833 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 834 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 834 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116
MCCALL CHRISTENSEN 837 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
SARA PARKER 840 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 841 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 842 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 843 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116
ROSA D NEGRETE; PATTY CARDENAS (JT)845 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 845 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116
PERRY E SPIGHT; MARGARET SPIGHT (JT)846 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 849 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
ALFONSO JR. ULIBARRI 852 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
ARMANDO MIRANDA; ROSALBA MIRANDA (JT)858 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 858 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116
AMBER SECKLETSTEWA; ERIC SECKLETSTEWA
(JT)859 W HOYT PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 860 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 861 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
Current Occupant 862 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
PETER M LASUO 866 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 867 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
MICHAEL WOLF HOFFMAN 872 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
Current Occupant 878 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116
WALGREEN CO PO BOX 1159 DEERFIELD IL 60015
JO ANN O TWISDALE; TOMMY M TWISDALE (TC)PO BOX 16915 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
960 W., LC PO BOX 1773 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
TRUMAN MARKETING LLC PO BOX 294 LAYTON UT 84041
Salt Lake City Planning Division Eric Daems PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:August 17, 2021
RE: Permitting Restaurants in the PL – Public Lands Zoning District
PLNPCM2020-00503
The Council will be briefed about a zoning text amendment initiated by Mayor Mendenhall to amend the
land use table in Section 21A.33.070 Salt Lake City Code and add restaurants as a permitted use within the
Public Lands (PL) zoning district. Currently restaurants are not permitted or conditional uses within the
zone but are accessory uses to serve and contribute to a principle use and are located on the same lot as
well as under the same ownership as the principal use.
Planning staff identified 113 Public Lands parcels meeting the minimum 20,000 square foot requirement
for a permitted use, with 25 of those owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. Others are owned by the Salt
Lake City Board of Education, the State or Federal government (not under City jurisdiction) or are
privately owned. (See attachment B (page 20 of the Administration’s transmittal) for a map of parcels
zoned PL.) While these parcels would meet the minimum lot size for permitted use, there are other
requirements including lot width and building setbacks that might not be met. It is Planning staff’s opinion
potential impact of permitting restaurants in the Public Lands zone would be minimal and likely happen on
only a few parcels within the city.
Number of parcels
zoned PL
PL Parcels greater
than 20,000 sf (which
could potentially
accommodate a
restaurant use)
PL parcels greater
than 20,000 sf owned
by Salt Lake City
PL parcels greater
than 20,000 sf owned
by Salt Lake City
Board of Education
PL parcels greater
than 20,000 sf owned
by other entities
(government or
private)
247 113 25 65 23
Item Schedule:
Briefing: August 17, 2021
Set Date: August 17, 2021
Public Hearing: September 7, 2021
Potential Action: September 21, 2021
Page | 2
Planning staff noted an example of a restaurant that could benefit from the proposed change. Cytybyrd
Café in the City & County Building operates as an accessory use to the principle governmental use of the
building. This limits hours the café can operate to Monday – Friday until 4:00 pm. Under the proposed
change allowing restaurants as a permitted use Cytybyrd could stay open into the evenings and on
weekends. Planning staff stated the proposed text amendment might activate other buildings that are
underutilized or unprogrammed after peak operating hours.
It should be noted the Open Space, Natural Open Space, and Public Lands 2 zoning districts are similar to
the Public Lands zoning district, but they are separate and would not be affected by the proposed change.
In an analysis of standards for zoning text amendments, Planning staff found the proposal complies with
all standards. See Attachment D (pages 23-24) of the Administration’s transmittal for the detailed analysis.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the
City Council for the proposed text amendment.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving
forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
1.Is the Council supportive of the proposed text amendment?
2.The Council may wish to inquire if there is any notification process required for adjacent
property owners if uses change/expand within a certain distance of a property line, or if there
are instances where that could be helpful (for example, if a parcel is located adjacent to
residences).
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified two key considerations which are summarized below. For the complete analysis
see pages 16-18 of the Administration’s transmittal.
Key Consideration #1: Adopted Master Planning Documents
A guiding principle in Plan Salt Lake is to create a “balanced economy that produces quality jobs and
fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to survive.” Planning staff noted the
Salt Lake City Urban Design Element speaks to implementing pedestrian-oriented design to activate public
spaces. It is Planning staff’s opinion allowing restaurants in the PL zone would encourage use in these often
underutilized publicly owned spaces.
Key Consideration #2: Impacts for Allowing Restaurants in PL Zoned Properties
Potential benefits of permitting restaurants:
•Activate existing buildings and public spaces underutilized or unprogrammed after peak business
hours.
•Allow broader property use and allow local businesses to open and existing businesses to extend
operations.
•Restaurant owners would sign a lease with Salt Lake City (for City owned parcels), generating
revenue.
•New development would be required to follow Public Lands Zoning District standards.
Potential issues with permitting restaurants:
•Signage
Page | 3
o During City department review of the proposal the issue of regulating private signs on
public property was raised. Currently City Code states only portable signs are allowed on
publicly owned land. The code may need to be amended to allow signage to promote
restaurants.
•Parking
o Restaurants are required to have two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of usable floor
area. Shared parking is allowed when more than one use shares the same parking facility. If
the new off-street parking ordinance is adopted by the Council, this parking requirement
would remain the same.
•Commercialization of public spaces
o During previous planning processes some residents shared concerns about commercializing
public spaces. The City could generate revenue from private businesses operating on
government land, but there are few properties that meet requirements so Planning staff
stated competition with the private market would be minimal. A resident commented to
Planning staff they support allowing restaurants as a conditional use subject to restrictions,
particularly if alcohol is served. Current code does not permit alcohol establishments in the
PL zone.
In the key considerations summary Planning staff stated the following:
“Staff supports allowing restaurants in the Public Lands Zoning District because in addition to
supporting parks and open spaces, the zone already allows a variety of commercial uses. The
existing commercial element of the zone makes it different than the Open Space or Natural Open
Space Zoning Districts, which are designed to protect undeveloped open space and limit the
number of commercial uses allowed.”
PUBLIC PROCESS
• August 4, 2020 Planning staff contacted all community council chairs and recognized
organizations about the proposal. None requested additional information or provided comments
during the 45-day comment period.
• August 4, 2020-September 20, 2020 proposal information and request for comments was posted
to the City online open house page.
• October 15, 2020 Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites.
• October 17, 2020 Public hearing notice published in the newspaper.
• As of publication of the Planning Commission staff report five comments were received by
Planning staff. Three were supportive of the proposal, one was opposed, and one asked for
clarification. To date Council staff has not received any comments on the proposal. Any comments
received will be forwarded to Council Members.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2020-00503
Permitting Restaurants in the PL – Public Lands Zoning District
STAFF CONTACT: Amanda Roman, Principal Planner
(385) 386-2765, amanda.roman@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: A zoning text amendment, initiated by Mayor Erin
Mendenhall, to amend the land use table in the zoning ordinance and add restaurants as a permitted
use within the Public Lands District (Section 21A.33.070). Under the current ordinance,
restaurants may operate as an accessory use, but are not permitted as a standalone entity. Accessory
uses are intended to serve and contribute to a principal use and must be located on the same lot
and under the same ownership as the principal use. In response to public inquiry, Mayor
Mendenhall asked Planning staff to review the Zoning Ordinance and provide a recommendation
on whether permitting restaurants to operate independently of a principal use is appropriate within
the zone.
The purpose of the Public Lands zone (section 21A.32.070) is to delineate areas of public use and
control the potential redevelopment of public uses, lands, and facilities. The majority of the land
under the zoning designation is owned by government entities. If amended, restaurants would
July 7, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Jul 14, 2021 15:02 MDT)
07/14/2021
07/14/2021
adhere to the same regulations as other permitted uses in the zone, which requires permitted and
conditional uses to be located on lots with a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet and a minimum
lot width of 75 feet.
If adopted, the proposed text amendment would provide opportunities for new businesses to open
and for existing businesses to expand their hours of operation. Permitting restaurants would
activate existing buildings and public spaces that are underutilized or unprogrammed after peak
hours. For example, Cytybyrd Café, which is located within the City and County Building, could
expand their hours of operation to provide dinner service and could remain open on weekends.
There are approximately 115 existing parcels in Salt Lake City (5%) that are zoned Public Lands
and are at least 20,000 square feet in size. The Planning Commission Staff Report in Exhibit 3B
provides a comprehensive review of the parcels that would be potentially affected by the
proposed zoning text amendment.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all Salt Lake City Recognized
Community Organizations on August 4, 2020 regarding the proposed text amendment. The
Recognized Organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to
meet with them and discuss the proposed amendment. No Community Council requested that
staff attend a meeting and no formal comments were submitted.
Public Open House: The petition was posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House
webpage from August 4 – September 20, 2020. Five public comments were submitted during the
comment period. The public comments are included in the Planning Commission staff report in
Exhibit 3B.
Planning Commission Meeting: On October 28, 2020 the Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the proposed zoning text amendment. One citizen spoke in support of the
request. One citizen had concerns on how the City determines the market rate when negotiating a
lease, as there doesn’t appear to be a standard lease for commercial and non-profit activities
operating in public buildings.
The Commission asked staff for clarification on permitted uses within the Public Lands zone and
other zones under the Special Purpose District. The Commission voted 5-1 to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the text amendment, consistent with the staff
recommendation.
EXHIBITS:
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Planning Commission
A) Mailing Notice
B) Staff Report
C) Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
4. Original Petition
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.ORDINANCE
2.PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
3.NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
4.PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 28, 2020
A.NEWSPAPER NOTICE
B.STAFF REPORT
C. AGENDA AND MINUTES
5.ORIGINAL PETITION
1. ORDINANCE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ________ of 2021
(Amending Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code
to allow restaurant uses in the PL Public Lands District)
An ordinance amending Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow
restaurant uses in the PL Public Lands District, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00503.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October
28, 2020 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No.
PLNPCM2020-00503) to amend Section 21A.33.070 (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of
Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) of the Salt Lake City Code to
allow restaurant uses in the PL Public Lands District; and
WHEREAS, at its October 28, 2020 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on this matter, the city council finds 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.33.070. That
Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted
and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to modify
only the row in that table pertaining to “Restaurant” use, which row shall read and appear as
follows:
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU
Restaurant P7 P P
The codifier is instructed to only make revisions to the table at Section 21A.33.070 as it pertains
to the row on that table pertaining to “Restaurant” uses as part of this ordinance and make no
other revisions.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of
______________, 2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending PL district regs to allow restaurant use
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
May 27, 2021
2. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2020-00503
June 24, 2020 Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall initiated a petition to amend
the text of the Zoning Ordinance to add restaurants as a permitted use
within the PL – Public Lands Zoning District. The amendment affects
section 21A.33.070 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for
Special Purpose Districts.
July 7, 2020 Petition PLNPCM2020-00503 assigned to Amanda Roman, Principal
Planner, for staff analysis and processing.
August 4, 2020 Petition posted to the Planning Division’s Online Open House
webpage. The public comment period ended on September 20, 2020.
October 15, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice posted on City and State
websites.
October 17, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice published in newspaper.
October 28, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public
hearing. The commission then voted 5:1 to send a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
November 9, 2020 Ordinance requested from City Attorney’s office.
November 18, 2020 Planning Commission ratified minutes of the October 28, 2020
meeting.
3. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00503
Permitting Restaurants in the PL – Public Lands Zoning District Zoning Text Amendment
A zoning text amendment, initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall, to amend the land use table in the
zoning ordinance and add restaurants as a permitted use within the Public Lands District (Section
21A.33.070). Under the current ordinance, restaurants may operate as an accessory use, but are
not permitted as a standalone entity. Accessory uses are intended to serve and contribute to a
principal use and must be located on the same lot and under the same ownership as the principal
use. The purpose of the Public Lands zone (section 21A.32.070) is to delineate areas of public use
and control the potential redevelopment of public uses, lands, and facilities. The majority of the
land under the zoning designation is owned by government entities. If amended, restaurants would
adhere to the same regulations as other permitted uses in the zone, which requires permitted and
conditional uses to be located on lots with a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet and a minimum
lot width of 75 feet.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location.
**This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our
website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during
the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at
(801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received
through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please call Amanda Roman at 385-386-2765
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at
amanda.roman@slcgov.com. You may review the file online at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/citizen, by selecting the Planning tab, and entering the petition
numbers PLNPCM2020-00503.
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.
October 28, 2020
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
A.Mailing Notice
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
B.Staff Report
October 28, 2020
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Amanda Roman, Principal Planner
(801) 535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com
Date: October 28, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2020-00503 Permitting Restaurants in the PL – Public Lands Zone Text Amendment
Zoning Text Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
PARCEL ID: Not applicable
MASTER PLAN: Not applicable
ZONING DISTRICT: PL – Public Lands
REQUEST: Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall initiated a petition to amend the text of the Zoning
Ordinance to add restaurants as a permitted use within the PL – Public Lands Zoning District. The
amendment will affect section 21A.33.070 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special
Purpose Districts. Under the current code, restaurants are not Permitted or Conditional Uses
with the zone.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings in the staff report, Planning Staff finds the proposed
text amendment adequately meets the standards for general text amendments and therefore
recommends that Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council to
adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Proposed Text Amendment
B.Public Lands Zoning Map
C.Petition to Initiate
D.Analysis of Standards
E.Public Process and Comments
F.Department Review Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: Mayor Mendenhall initiated an amendment
to section 21A.33.070 to potentially permit restaurants within the PL – Public Lands Zoning District.
Under the current code, restaurants are not permitted as standalone entity, but are allowed as an
accessory use. An accessory use is defined as a use that:
A.Is subordinate in area, extent and purpose to, and serves a principal use;
B.Is customarily found as an incident to such principal use;
C.Contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of those occupying, working at
or being serviced by such principal use;
D.Is, except as otherwise expressly authorized by the provisions of this title, located
on the same zoning lot as such principal use; and
E.Is under the same ownership or control as the principal use.
The Mayor asked Planning staff to review the Public Lands Zoning District regulations and provide
input on the pros and cons of adding restaurants as a permitted use after receiving inquiries from
business owners who wish to operate independently of the principal use. An example of this is Cytybyrd
Café, which is located within the City and County Building. The restaurant, which operates as an
accessory to the main governmental use of the building, may only remain open while the City and
County Building is open. This means the restaurant is allowed to operate Monday – Friday until 4 PM
and must close on the weekends. These limited hours impact their opportunity to serve customers and
ultimately reduces their profit margins. If restaurants were allowed as a principal use, Cytybyrd Café
could increase their business hours past 4 PM on Monday – Friday and remain open on weekends.
Special Purpose Districts
The Public Lands Zoning District is under the Special Purpose District umbrella. Section 21A.33.070
Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts only permits 32 of 131 listed uses
within the Public Lands zone. An additional 10 uses may be allowed upon Conditional Use approval.
The intent of Special Purpose Districts is described as:
Certain geographic areas of the city contain land uses or platting patterns that do not fit
traditional zoning classifications (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) or uniform bulk
regulations. These areas currently contain special land uses (e.g., airports or medical
centers) which have a unique character, or contain mixed land uses which are difficult to
regulate using uniform bulk and density standards. Because these areas have unique land
uses, platting patterns and resources, special districts are needed to respond to these
conditions. These special purpose districts are further intended to maintain the integrity of
these areas, allow for greater flexibility in site design, and achieve the specialized goals for
these areas.
The Open Space Zoning District and the Natural Open Space District are also under the Special
Purpose District umbrella. While they are similar to the Public Lands Zoning District, they are their
own specific zones with different regulations and standards and are generally made up of public parks
and open space rather than built public facilities. The proposed text amendment will not change any
development regulations or permitted land uses within these zones. Of the three zones, Public Lands
allows the most development.
Public Lands Zoning District
The purpose of the Public Lands Zoning District is to specifically delineate areas of public use and to
control the potential redevelopment of public uses, lands and facilities. The zone allows some
commercial uses but also includes parks and open space.
• Permitted uses include art galleries, libraries, offices, off-site parking (including park and ride
lots), reception centers, research and development facilities, schools, and utilities.
• Conditional uses include fairgrounds, government facilities, jails, reception centers, and
stadiums.
• The zone also supports low impact uses such as gardens, farm stands, outdoor recreation,
parks, and open space.
Open Space Zoning District
The purpose of the Open Space Zoning District is to preserve and enhance public and private open
space, natural areas, and improved park and recreational areas.
• Permitted uses include some development such as amphitheaters, government facilities,
outdoor storage, and utilities.
• Conditional uses include the adaptive reuse of a landmark site, living quarters for a caretake or
security guard, and reception centers.
• Low impact uses include agriculture, botanical gardens, farm stands, and public parks.
Natural Open Space District
The purpose of the Natural Open Space Zoning District is to specifically delineate natural areas of
special environmental or scenic value and support the preservation of these areas through limited
development. The zone consists of primarily undeveloped land. The only four land uses permitted in
the zone are informal amphitheaters, open space, and in the case of existing residential dwellings, the
zone allows daycares and home occupations.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed changes have been reviewed against the four Zoning Text Amendment Standards in
section 21A.50.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. The following information was gathered through an
analysis of the existing properties in Salt Lake City. In short, of the 2,368 existing parcels, the proposed
text amendment would potentially affect 115 parcels. Further analysis is required to determine which
of the parcels could accommodate a restaurant or other permitted use. The zoning map provided in
Attachment B shows the parcels meeting the minimum lot size for permitted uses (20,000 square feet)
in green and parcels above 5 acres in blue. The yellow parcels are under 20,000 square feet and are not
eligible for development. The same information is provided below for clarity.
o Salt Lake City currently has 2,368 individual parcels within city boundaries.
o Of these parcels, 247 are within the Public Lands Zoning District, the majority of which are
government owned.
o 115 Public Lands parcels meet the minimum lot size for permitted uses, which is 20,000 SF
(.4591 acres).
o There are 36 parcels above 21,780 SF (5 acres), which is the square footage required for public
schools.
o 25 of the 115 parcels are owned by Salt Lake City Corporation.
o 12 of the 115 parcels are owned by the State or Federal government, thus not under Salt Lake
City’s jurisdiction.
o 3 of the 115 Public Lands parcels are privately owned.
Total
number
of SLC
Parcels
Number
of parcels
zoned PL
PL parcels over
20,000 SF
(which could
potentially
accommodate a
restaurant use)
PL parcels over
5 acres (the
majority of
which are
owned by the
SLC Board of
Education)
PL parcels
over 20,000
SF owned by
Salt Lake
City
Corporation
PL parcels over
20,000 SF owned
by the State or
Federal
Government (not
under the City’s
jurisdiction)
Privately
owned
PL parcels
over 20,000
SF
2,368 247 115 36 25 12 3
While there are 115 Public Lands parcels that meet the minimum lot size required for a permitted use,
that doesn’t suggest the properties meet the other underlying zoning requirements such as lot width
and building setbacks. External factors including location, parking, and development costs may also
limit the number of parcels where a restaurant could locate. Many of the parcels are already developed
or are intended for use by public schools. Additionally, land owned by the State or Federal government
is not under Salt Lake City’s jurisdiction, thus doesn’t have to comply with the City’s underlying zoning
requirements. The impact of permitting restaurants is expected to be minimal and will likely only occur
on a few parcels in the city.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The key considerations below were identified through department review, public comments, and an
analysis of the zoning ordinance and the City’s guiding documents such as Plan Salt Lake and the Salt
Lake City Urban Design Element.
Adopted Master Planning Documents
One of the guiding principles in Plan Salt Lake is to create a “balanced economy that produces
quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive”.
One of the City’s initiatives is to support the growth of small businesses, entrepreneurship and
neighborhood nodes. Permitting additional uses in the Public Lands zone creates more
economic opportunities for local businesses. The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element speaks
to implementing pedestrian-oriented design to activate public spaces. Allowing restaurants in
this zone would encourage their use in publicly owned spaces that are often underutilized.
Impacts from Allowing Restaurants in PL Zoned Properties
Potential Benefits of Permitting Restaurants
• Permitting restaurants would activate existing buildings and public spaces that are
currently underutilized or unprogrammed after peak business hours.
• Restaurants would allow for a broader use of properties and provide an opportunity for
local businesses to open and existing businesses to expand their operations.
• Restaurant owners would have to sign a lease with Salt Lake City or the government entity
that owns the land, which generates revenue and allows the entity to regulate the use.
• Any new development would be required to adhere to the Public Lands Zoning District
standards outlined in section 21A.32.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. Outside of public
schools, all other permitted uses, such as a restaurant, must meet the following criteria:
o Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 square feet (.4591 acres)
o Minimum Lot Width: 75 feet
o Maximum Building Height: Thirty-five feet (35’)
o Minimum Yard [setback] Requirements:
Front, Rear and Corner Side Yards: Thirty feet (30’)
Interior Side Yard: Twenty feet (20’)
o Landscape Yards: All front and corner side yards must meet the requirements
outlined in chapter 21A.48.Landscape Buffers: Landscape buffers are required
when a lot in the PL Public Lands District abuts a lot in a Single-Family or Two-
Family Residential District. Landscaping buffer requirements can be found in
chapter 21A.48.
Potential Issues with Permitting Restaurants
Issue 1: Signage
Planning staff asked other city departments and divisions to review and provide feedback on the
proposal. During the review process, the issue of how to regulate private signage on public property
was raised. Section 21A.46 - Signs On Public Property states, “Except for portable signs authorized
pursuant to section 21A.46.055 of this chapter, no sign shall be located on publicly owned land or inside
street rights of way, except signs erected by permission of an authorized public agency.” Unless the
signage code is amended, restaurants will be held to the standard above. This code may have to be
addressed in the future as restaurants often provide signage to promote their business.
Issue 2: Parking
Per table 21A.44.030 Schedule of Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, restaurants are
required to have two (2) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of useable floor area. Shared parking is
allowed when multiple uses share the same off-street parking facility. A new off-street parking
ordinance has been transmitted to the City Council after receiving a positive recommendation from
the Planning Commission on January 8, 2020. If adopted, the off-street parking requirement for
restaurants would remain the same. All departmental review comments can be reviewed in
Attachment F.
Issue 3: Commercialization of Public Spaces
There have been some concerns from residents and through past planning processes that
commercializing public spaces is not appropriate. While the City would generate some revenue from
private businesses wishing to operate on government owned land, the number of properties available
is limited so the competition with the private market would be minimal. Regarding the current
proposal, one resident spoke to this issue. They are in favor of allowing restaurants as a Conditional
Use, subject to forceable restrictions, particularly if they are allowed to serve alcohol. Current code does
not permit alcohol establishments within the zone. The Public Lands – 2 zone was established during
the development of Library Square. This zone limits the size and types of permitted uses on public
lands to minimize the impact a commercial business may have. While this is a separate zoning district,
the uses are similar to the Public Lands zone.
Summary:
After reviewing applicable code requirements, staff believes adding restaurants as a permitted use
aligns with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and city-wide planning documents. Only 115 existing
properties are zoned Public Lands that also meet the minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 SF for
a permitted use. Upon a complete zoning review, these properties may not meet the other zoning
standards outlined in code, thus could not accommodate the use. In addition, most properties are
owned by a government entity so the business owner would have to sign a lease to operate on the
property, which allows the use to be regulated to a higher extent.
Staff agrees that the commercialization of public lands can be inappropriate. But because the Public
Lands Zoning District has a limited number of permitted uses, adding restaurants to the land use table
would not create additional impacts that couldn’t be mitigated through the existing regulations
outlined in code. Adding a commercial element to the zone would also encourage a greater use of these
properties which typically only support daytime uses. Staff supports allowing restaurants in the Public
Lands Zoning District because in addition to supporting parks and open spaces, the zone already allows
a variety of commercial uses. The existing commercial element of the zone makes it different than the
Open Space or Natural Open Space Zoning Districts, which are designed to protect undeveloped open
space and limit the number of commercial uses allowed.
After reviewing city-wide planning documents, zoning regulations, and the existing land uses within
the Public Lands Zoning District, staff has concluded that permitting restaurants will uphold the intent
of the zone and is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city, thus
recommends the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council
regarding the proposed text amendment.
NEXT STEPS:
The City Council has the final authority to make changes to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The
recommendation of the Planning Commission for this request will be forwarded to the City Council for
their review and decision.
ATTACHMENT A: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
21A.33.070: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL
PURPOSE DISTRICTS: To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES
FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE
Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted
Use Permitted And Conditional Uses By District
RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU
Restaurant P7 P P
ATTACHMENT B: PUBLIC LANDS ZONING MAP
ATTACHMENT C: PETITION TO INITIATE
ATTACHMENT D: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
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. In making a decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the City Council should
consider the following:
Factor Finding Rationale
1.Whether a proposed text
amendment is consistent with
the purposes, goals, objectives,
and policies of the city as
stated through its various
adopted planning documents;
Complies One of the guiding principles of the 2015 Plan
Salt Lake is to create a balanced economy that
fosters an environment for commerce, local
business, and industry to thrive. Expanding the
number of properties where a restaurant can
operate supports business owners and the local
economy.
The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element
encourages greater use of public areas for eating,
entertainment, etc. It also speaks to the
importance of prioritizing street-level activity
when developing pedestrian-oriented spaces.
Properties zoned Public Lands typically have
daytime activity, but once the primary use closes
for the evening the property isn’t fully utilized.
Permitting restaurants would expand the
operational hours and allow for more “eyes on
the street”.
2.Whether a proposed text
amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of
the zoning ordinance;
Complies The purpose statement of the Public Lands
District is to specifically delineate areas of public
use and to control the potential redevelopment of
public uses, lands and facilities. The majority of
the properties zoned Public Lands are
government owned. Any development or
business proposals on City-owned land would
have to comply with the underlying zoning
requirements, complete a site plan review, and
receive various department approvals.
State and Federally owned properties function
independently and do not have to adhere to the
City’s Zoning Ordinance.
3. Whether a proposed text
amendment is consistent with
the purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may
impose additional standards;
and
Complies The proposed change primarily affects the base
zoning district. If a parcel which is zoned Public
Lands is also located within the airport overlay
district or a local historic district, the proposal
will have to comply with the applicable standards
of the overlay district.
4. The extent to which a
proposed text amendment
implements best current,
professional practices of
urban planning and design.
Complies The proposed text amendment would diversify
the use of existing public spaces and promote
activity in spaces that are currently underutilized
or unprogrammed. Promoting additional uses
increases street activity and allows more
opportunities for “eyes on the street”, thus
increasing security.
Restaurants would adhere to the established
zoning standards outlined in section 21A.32.070
of code, such as, lot size, lot width, setbacks, and
landscape buffers. Of the 247 properties zoned
Public Lands only 115 properties could
potentially meet the zoning requirements to
accommodate a restaurant.
ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities,
related to the proposed amendment:
Recognized Organizations Notice:
Staff contacted all community council chairs and recognized organizations on August 4, 2020. None
of the community councils requested additional information or provided comments within the 45-day
comment period.
Open House:
From August 4, 2020 to September 20, 2020, information and a request for comments regarding the
proposal was posted to the City’s Online Open House page.
Public Hearing Notice:
A notice of the public hearing for this text amendment includes:
−Public hearing notice published in the newspaper on October 17, 2020.
−Public hearing notice was posted on City and State websites on October 15, 2020.
−
Public Comments:
At the time of the publication of this staff report, five public comments have been received. The
comments are included below. Any additional comments received will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission.
From:Steve Alder
To:Roman, Amanda
Subject:(EXTERNAL)
Date:Monday, August 10, 2020 12:31:23 PM
Facilities on public lands.
I am confused by the zone, since the city seems to deny that it has any zoning authority on state or
federal lands, how does the city have any power to restrict or permit food or beverage services on
public lands and if it can why can’t the city zone research park.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From:Jason Cowan
To:Roman, Amanda
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-00503 Permitting Restaurants
Date:Saturday, August 15, 2020 2:27:23 PM
Hello Ms. Roman,
I am in support of permitting restaurants to use land deemed PL Zone. Restaurants need all the
help they can get during this time and if expanding their operations to these PL zoned areas its
good for us all.
Thank you.
Jason Cowan
To call or text:
From:James Webster
To:Roman, Amanda
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Restaurants on public lands
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 12:35:47 AM
This appears as a gateway to enable Jon Bates et.al. to further commercialize public institutional lands as an
unwarranted “educational or research mission”.
Traffic impacts alone merit denial. Jim Webster, RLA
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
From:René smink
To:Roman, Amanda
Subject:Re: (EXTERNAL) Restaurant in public lands zoning district : yes please
Date:Monday, September 14, 2020 11:13:29 AM
Perfect I vote YES
Regards, Un Saludo, Met vriendelijke groet,
René H.A. Smink
From: Roman, Amanda <Amanda.Roman@slcgov.com>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 09:02
To: René smink <>
Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Restaurant in public lands zoning district : yes please
Rene,
I hope you are well. Yes, if the amendment is approved and restaurants are listed as a “Permitted Use”
then Cytybyrd would be able to operate on the weekends.
Best,
Amanda Roman
Principal Planner
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7660
www.slc.gov/planning
From: René smink < >
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 8:46 PM
To: Roman, Amanda <Amanda.Roman@slcgov.com>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) Restaurant in public lands zoning district : yes please
Thanks , would this mean that the city bird at washington square could open weekends?
Regards, Un Saludo, Met vriendelijke groet,
René H. A. Smink
ATTACHMENT F: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
Public Utilities (Jason Draper at jason.draper@slcgov.com)
“Public Utilities does not object to the proposed text amendment. All restaurants will be
required to meet public utility standards, policies, and ordinances. All restaurants require grease
removal systems. There may be cost associated with restaurants including meter costs, and
sewer lateral replacement or installation to accommodate this use.”
Transportation (Michael Barry at michael.barry@slcgov.com)
“Each restaurant will need to accommodate the required off-street parking.”
Public Lands (Kristin Riker at kristin.riker@slcgov.com)
“I [Kristin Riker] have spoken with Public Services Attorneys and with Planning regarding the
impact of this action. I am supporting to move this forward.”
Engineering (Scott Weiler at scott.weiler@slcgov.com)
Engineering has no objections.
HAND (Lani Eggertsen-Goff at lani.eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com)
HAND does not have any concerns related to this proposal.
Zoning, Building and Fire (Gregory Mikolash at gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com)
There are no zoning, building, or fire related issues associated with this request.
Sustainability (Vicki Bennett at vicki.bennett@slcgov.com)
No concerns from Sustainability.
Police (Scott Teerlink at scott.teerlink@slcgov.com)
No concerns from Police on this proposal.
October 28, 2020
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda & Minutes
JOINT MEETING
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION & APPEALS (VARIANCE) HEARING
MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
October 28, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
JOINT APPEALS HEARING AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: As
provided by City Code, a conditional use that includes a requested variance, may
be heard simultaneously. Items 1 and 1A on the agenda will be heard during the
same public hearing. After the public hearing is closed by the Planning
Commission and concurred to by the Appeals Hearing Officer, the Commission will
make a decision on the conditional use first, followed by the Appeals Hearing
Officer.
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission
Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the meeting can
still access the meeting how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the joint
meeting, they are available on the following platforms:
•YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or in
providing general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on
Webex at:
•http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-appeals-10282020
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 AND OCTOBER 14, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Extensions of Previous Approvals: the commission will discuss granting a one-year extension
to all land use applications that are set to expire during the current public health emergency. Due
to City building being closed and city staff working remotely, increased construction costs due to
disruptions with the supply chain, and the impact of the current pandemic, submitting required plans
and documents necessary to avoid a land use approval from expiring is requiring a longer period of
time. The Planning Commission may consider granting an extension for all land use approvals that
require an approved extension from the commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
1.Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 1977 South Scenic Drive - Tim and Cathy
Chambless, owners, request approval of a conditional use to establish a 1,313 square foot
Acc-essory Dwelling Unit attached to the rear of their home at approximately 1977 South
Scenic Drive. The subject property is located in the FR-3/12,000 Zone and is within Council
District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315-8115 or
caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00620
The Planning Commission will open the public hearing, which will serve as the public
hearing for both the Planning Commission and the Appeals Hearing Officer.
VARIANCE HEARING
1A. Variance for an ADU at approximately 1977 South Scenic Drive – Tim and Cathy
Chambless, owners, request the granting of a variance to allow a proposed Accessory Dwelling
Unit to encroach between 13 and 15 feet into the required 35-foot rear yard at approximately 1977
South Scenic Drive. The subject property is located in the FR-3/12,000 Zone and is within Council
District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315-8115 or
caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNZAD2020-00490
Note: The Appeals Hearing Officer will not make a decision on this matter during the
meeting and will issue a decision at a later date.
Once the Appeals Hearing is closed the Planning Commission meeting will be resume
business.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
2. Special Exception for Height at approximately 1400 East Federal Way - Geoffrey Tice,
applicant, requests a special exception for additional building height to add a second story to
the home located at 1400 East Federal Way. By ordinance the maximum building height is
20' for flat roofs; the applicant is requesting special exception approval to build to 27'6" in
height. The property is located within the R-1-5,000 Zone and is within Council District 3,
represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315-8115 or
caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00465
3. Block 67 Changes to Building Design at approximately 131 South 300 West - A request
by Emir Tursic, architect, to modify the approved hotel building of the Block 67 development
located at approximately 131 S 300 W. The Planning Commission approved the Conditional
Building and Site Design Review and Planned Development on November 8, 2017. The
proposed modifications include changes to the design and massing of the building and
material changes. These changes are required by ordinance to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. The site is zoned D-4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business District). The
subject property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff
contact: Molly Robinson at (385) 226-8656 or molly.robinson@slcgov.com) Case numbers
PLNPCM2017-00448 & PLNPCM2017-00418
4. Central Station West Apartments Planned Development & Design Review at
approximately 577 West 200 South - Eric Balls representing Gardner Batt LLC, has
requested Planned Development and Design Review approval for the Central Station West
Apartments project to be located at approximately 577 West 200 South. The proposed
project is for a 65-unit apartment building on a 0.46-acre (20,000 square feet) parcel. The
proposed building will be six stories in height. The property is located in the G-MU – Gateway-
Mixed Use zoning district. The G-MU zoning district requires Planned Development approval
for all new principal buildings and uses. In addition, Design Review approval has been
requested in order to address some design aspects of the building including material choices,
the length of blank walls and street-level glass requirements on the west façade of the
building. The proposal is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros.
(Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case
numbers PLNPCM2020-00187 & PLNPCM2020-00647
5. Permitting Restaurants in the PL Public Lands Zoning District Text Amendment - Mayor
Erin Mendenhall has initiated a text amendment to the zoning ordinance pertaining to
restaurant uses within the PL – Public Lands Zoning District. Under the current ordinance
restaurants are allowed to operate as an accessory use only. The amendment would allow
restaurants to operate as a principal use. The purpose of the PL district is to provide areas in
the city for public uses and regulate the development of those uses. The proposed
amendment affects section 21A.33.070 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special
Purpose Districts of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also
be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (385) 386-2765 or
amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00503
6. Billboard Ordinance Amendments - The City Council is requesting amendments to the
zoning ordinance regulations regarding billboards. The proposed amendments would modify
city code to align with state law, eliminating the city’s use of a “billboard bank” (a method for
managing billboard relocations) to align more closely with Utah state law regulating billboards.
The amendments would continue to prohibit new billboards. State law would regulate future
billboard modification and relocation. The amendments also include specifics on size, height,
and spacing of billboards, along with landscaping, when not already specified in the state law.
The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.46 of the zoning ordinance. Related
provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes
would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at (385) 226-8959 or
casey.stewart@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00351
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson and Vice Chairperson elections
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. 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.
Agenda items may not be heard in the order listed. The Appeals Hearing Officer reserves the right to change the order
of agenda items as deemed necessary. To request the files for the above items please contact the Staff Planner. Visit
the Planning Division website at www.slcgov.com/planning/planning-public-meetings for copies of the Appeals Hearing
Officer meeting/hearing agendas, staff reports and decisions. Staff reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting
Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
& APPEALS (VARIANCE) HEARING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the joint Planning Commission Meeting & Appeals (Variance)
Hearing. The meeting was called to order at 5:31:07 PM. Audio recordings of the joint Planning
Commission meeting & Appeals (Variance) Hearing are retained for a period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson,
Brenda Sheer; Commissioners, Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon,
and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioners Andres Paredes, and Sara Urquhart were excused.
Appeals Hearing Officer: Mary J. Woodhead.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; John
Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Caitlyn Miller, Principal Planner; David Gellner,
Principal Planner; Amanda Roman, Principal Planner; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; and Marlene
Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
5:33:14 PM
Chairperson, Adrienne Bell, read the Salt Lake City emergency proclamation.
5:34:12 PM
Appeals Hearing Officer, Mary J. Woodhead concurs.
APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 AND OCTOBER 14, 2020,
MEETING MINUTES. 5:35:37 PM
Commissioner Scheer moved to approve the September 30, 2020 and October 14, 2020 meeting
minutes.
Commissioner Young-Otterstrom seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Lee,
Young-Otterstrom, Lyon, and Scheer voted “Aye”. Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voting
for the October 14, 2020 meeting as she was not present. The motion passed 6-1.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:37:10 PM
Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:37:21 PM
Molly Robinson, Planning Manager, reminded the commission regarding the added meeting for
December 2, 2020.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Page 6
8:35:12 PM
Permitting Restaurants in the PL Public Lands Zoning District Text Amendment -
Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a text amendment to the zoning ordinance pertaining to restaurant
uses within the PL – Public Lands Zoning District. Under the current ordinance restaurants are allowed
to operate as an accessory use only. The amendment would allow restaurants to operate as a
principal use. The purpose of the PL district is to provide areas in the city for public uses and regulate
the development of those uses. The proposed amendment affects section 21A.33.070 Table of
Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts of the zoning ordinance. Related
provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact:
Amanda Roman at (385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00503
Amanda Roman, 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
positive recommendation to the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING 8:45:29 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing;
Cindy Cromer – Stated her concerns on how the City determines the market rate negotiating a
lease. There doesn’t appear to be standard lease for commercial and non-profit activities in public
buildings.
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Clarification on permitted uses
MOTION 9:10:55 PM
Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00503
Permitting Restaurants in the PL – Public Lands Zone Text Amendment.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Hoskins, Lyon, Lee, Bachman, and
Barry voted “Aye”. Commissioner Scheer voted “Nay”. The motion passed 5-1.
5. ORIGINAL PETITION
Petition PLNPCM2020-00503
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
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall
Cc: Lisa Shaeffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Jennifer McGrath, Deputy Director Department of
Community and Neighborhoods;
From: Nick Norris, Planning Director
Date: June 24, 2020
Re: Zoning amendment related to restaurant in the PL Public Lands Zoning District
The Planning Division has been asked to provide input on the pros and cons of adding restaurants as a
permitted use in the PL Public Lands Zoning District. The PL zoning district primarily includes government
properties that are used for public schools, government buildings, and government operations. The purpose of
the district is to provide areas in the city for public uses and regulate the development of those uses. The zoning
district includes lands owned by the State of Utah and the United States. These lands are not subject to the
zoning regulations, with the exception of public schools, which are subject to some local regulations.
The zoning district contains some unique land uses that include a variety of food serving establishments,
including the City and County Building and Smiths Ballpark and other unique properties such as the Wasatch
Plunge building on 300 West.
Adding restaurants to the table of permitted and conditional uses would be required for the use to be allowed in
the zoning district. The benefits of doing this include:
•Promoting broader use of the buildings and properties that are zoned PL, specifically those sites that
already include similar uses such as the restaurant in the City and County Building and potentially
restaurants on the Smith Ballpark property.
•Activating existing public spaces that are typically difficult to program and activate due to the nature of
the site.
•Supports the incubation and provides opportunity for local businesses.
•Generates some revenue for the government entity that owns the property.
There may be some concerns with taking this approach, including:
•Public lands containing commercial businesses competing with private property. This issue arose
during the redevelopment of the Library Block and adding commercial space inside the library. The
solution was to limit the size and type of uses to reduce competition with private property by creating a
new zone (PL-2).
•There may be barriers created by other zoning regulations, such as off-street parking requirements,
that make it difficult to establish the use on property that does not have adequate parking to begin with.
•Processing a zoning amendment requires diverting staff resources from other city priorities.
A zoning amendment process can be started by one of four entities:
•a property owner,
•Mayor,
•City Council, or
•Planning Commission.
l Page 2
The Planning Division typically provides a memo to the Mayor to sign to initiate a zoning amendment. The
memo explains the issue, provides a brief description of the process, and the resources required. For this
potential proposal, the process would follow the typical engagement processes that include notification of all
community councils and a 45-day comment period. Following the 45-day comment period the Planning
Division would prepare for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission
makes a recommendation, the matter is transmitted to the City Council for a decision.
In the interest of time and to avoid redundancy, this memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if
that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature
block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made
to not initiate the petition.
Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you.
Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above.
_____________________________________ ______________
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date
July 2, 2020
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:August 17, 2021
RE: Honorary Street Name Recognizing Pastor France Davis
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to add the honorary name “Pastor France Davis Way” to the
block of Harvard Avenue between State Street and Main Street.
The congregation of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church along with the Mayor’s Office propose adding the
honorary street name. Pastor Davis served the congregation for more than forty years. In addition, Pastor
Davis has provided significant community service. Among his many roles serving the broader community
are:
o member of several state and local boards
o Core Commission Member of the City’s Commission of Racial Equity and Policing
o provided counsel to community leaders
o adjunct faculty member in the University of Utah’s Ethnic Studies Program
The Attorney’s Office noted while the proposed honorary street name is not a permanent change, the asset
naming ordinance in City Code has a list of prohibited names for permanent asset naming. Included in the
list are “the name of a religious leader, unless such leader is recognized solely for the leader’s civic
contribution.” The Mayor’s Office stated the proposed honorary street name is to recognize and honor
Pastor Davis for his contributions to the community.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed honorary street name, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: August 17, 2021
Set Date: August 17, 2021
Public Hearing: August 24, 2021
Potential Action: August 24, 2021
Page | 2
POLICY QUESTION
1.Is the Council supportive of the proposed honorary street name?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Pastor Davis received numerous awards and honorary degrees for his service to the community including:
o Utah Humanities Council’s Governors Award for contributions in the Humanities
o Days of ’47 Committee’s Pioneers of Progress Award
o Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters and Degrees from Salt Lake Community College, Dixie State
University, Utah Valley University, Weber State University, and Snow College
Using the previous honorary street name (Harvey Milk Boulevard in 2016) as a guide, staff proposes the
following process:
•Submit proposed honorary naming to public for feedback.
▪Be clear Council is seeking feedback (it’s not a vote).
o Mail notification about the proposed honorary naming to property owners abutting the
street which would be affected. (Mayor’s Office to contact abutting property owners)
o Welcome any comments via email, phone, written letters, etc.
•Hold a public hearing.
•Council will vote to approve or deny the request.
The Administration estimates a total of $288.00 to produce and install two street signs at the State Street
and Main Street intersections with Harvard Avenue. Costs for the signs and installation will be donated to
the City.
There are currently several City streets with honorary names (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr. (600 South), Cesar
Chavez (500 South), Rosa Parks (200 East), John Stockton (300 West – a state road), Karl Malone (100 South),
Harvey Milk (900 South)).
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:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 19, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
SUBJECT: Honorary Street Name “France Davis Way”
STAFF CONTACTS: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff, Rachel.otto@slcgov.com
Hailey Leek, Special Projects & Equity Coordinator,
hailey.leek@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item
RECOMMENDATION: The congregation of the Calvary Missionary Baptist Church along with the
Office of the Mayor proposes adding the honorary street name “France Davis Way” on the block of 1050 S
between State Street and Main Street, south of Calvary Baptist Church. This honorary street name would
recognize Reverend France A. Davis, who served as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary Baptist Churc h, a
predominately African American congregation, for over forty years.
BUDGET IMPACT: Estimated minimum of $506.00 will be needed.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Reverend France A. Davis, a native of Georgia, has resided in the
state of Utah since 1972. He earned a Master’s degree in Communications from the University of Utah,
Master of Ministry Degree from The Nazarene University Nampa , Idaho, and for over forty years served
as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church, a predominately African American congregation. This
is especially remarkable given the fact that Calvary Baptist Church was established 122 years ago.
In addition to meeting the spiritual needs of his congregants, Reverend Davis was and still is actively
involved in community affairs, serving on numerous state and local boards, providing counsel to
community leaders, and serving as a bridge builder to the various entities that make up the community.
He is one of the Core Commission Members of the City’s Commission on Racial Equity in Policing.
Reverend Davis was an adjunct faculty member in the University of Utah’s Ethnic Studies Program and
the Honors program for more than four decades. He was awarded Emeritus Professor status at the en d of
spring semester 2014.
Lisa Shaffer (Jul 19, 2021 16:39 MDT)
07/19/2021
07/19/2021
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
Included among the many awards given to Reverend Davis over the years is the Utah Humanities
Council’s Governors Award for contributions in the Humanities, the Days of ’47 Committee’s Pioneers of
Progress Award, Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters and Degrees from Salt Lake Community College,
Dixie State University and the University of Utah, Honorary Degrees from the University Utah, Southern
Utah University, UVU, Dixie, Weber and Snow College.
Reverend Davis has also contributed to the community as a Member of the Board of Corrections and later
Chairman. Reverend Davis served as a member of the Utah State Board of Regents for 10 years serving as
Vice Chair the last year of his tenure, Founding Chair of UOIC (Utah Opportunities Indu strialization
Training Center).
In recognition of his dedicated service to humanity and his ongoing work as an educator, social justice
advocate, and religious leader in the state of Utah, the Pastor France A. Davis Scholarship was established
to aid deserving Utah students pursue their educational goals.
In the tradition of ministerial leaders such as Benjamin Mays, Howard Thurman , and Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., Pastor Davis has been actively involved in the in the quest for social justice for all of hum ankind.
Although Pastor Davis wears many hats and is well recognized in the community, he has always striven to
further improve his knowledge and skills in human relationships and providing guidance for others.
See Addendum A “Memorandum” dated July 6, 2021
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
ADDENDUM A
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
Memorandum
To: Salt Lake City Council
From:
Date: July 6, 2021
Re: France Davis Way
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The congregation of the Calvary Missionary Baptist Church along with the Office of the Mayor proposes
adding the honorary street name “France Davis Way” on the block of 1050 S between State Street and
Main Street, south of Calvary Baptist Church. This honorary street name would recognize Reverend
France A. Davis, who served as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary Baptist Churc h, a predominately African
American congregation, for over forty years.
There are currently several City streets with honorary names (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr. (600 South),
Cesar Chavez (500 South), Rosa Parks (200 East), John Stockton (300 West – a state road), Karl Malone
(100 South, and Harvey Milk Boulevard (900 South between 1100 East and 900 West)).
City crews would produce and install street signs in the impacted area, and the Mayor’s Office will notify
the surrounding businesses and residents of the proposed honorary street name .
Criteria for consideration of honorary naming
• Whether an individual is a city, state or nationally recognized person who has improved the
quality of life for the public.
• A significant historic feature or event.
• An individual or group who has made exceptional contributions to the city.
The City Attorney’s Office reported the C ity has considerable latitude on how to process honorary street
renaming petitions since they are not addressed in Salt Lake City Code. It was suggested the Council and
the Mayor’s Office follow steps in previous street renamings in order to be consistent.
Cost of signs
Administrative Staff provided information on the cost of street signs.
• Large signs 48” x 24” arterial signs $109.00/each
o signs on mast arms in larger intersections
• Since the City shop produces signs one at a time by cutting the lettering and applying them in
layers there is no economy of scale.
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 Engineering stated there will need to be 2 large signs for the proposed area. Installation costs
are estimated to be $70 for a total cost of $288.00.
France Davis Background
Reverend France A. Davis, a native of Georgia, has resided in the state of Utah since 1972. He earned a
Master’s degree in Communications from the University of Utah, Master of Ministry Degree from The
Nazarene University Nampa, Idaho, and for over forty years served as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary
Baptist Church, a predominately African American congregation. This is especially remarkable given the
fact that Calvary Baptist Church was established 122 years ago.
In addition to meeting the spiritual needs of his congregants, Reverend Davis was and still is actively
involved in community affairs, serving on numerous state and local boards, providing counsel to
community leaders, and serving as a bridge builder to the various entities that make up the community.
He is one of the Core Commission Members of the City’s Commission on Racial Equity in Policing.
Reverend Davis was an adjunct faculty member in the University of Utah’s Ethnic Studies Program and
the Honors program for more than four decades. He was awarded Emeritus Professor status at the en d of
spring semester 2014.
Included among the many awards given to Reverend Davis over the years is the Utah Humanities
Council’s Governors Award for contributions in the Humanities, the Days of ’47 Committee’s Pioneers of
Progress Award, Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters and Degrees from Salt Lake Community College,
Dixie State University and the University of Utah, Honorary Degrees from the University Utah, Southern
Utah University, UVU, Dixie, Weber and Snow College.
Reverend Davis has also contributed to the community as a Member of the Board of Corrections and later
Chairman. Reverend Davis served as a member of the Utah State Board of Regents for 10 years serving as
Vice Chair the last year of his tenure, Founding Chair of UOIC (Utah Opportunities Indu strialization
Training Center).
In recognition of his dedicated service to humanity and his ongoing work as an educator, social justice
advocate, and religious leader in the state of Utah, the Pastor France A. Davis Scholarship was established
to aid deserving Utah students pursue their educational goals.
In the tradition of ministerial leaders such as Benjamin Mays, Howard Thurman , and Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., Pastor Davis has been actively involved in the in the quest for social justice for all of hum ankind.
Although Pastor Davis wears many hats and is well recognized in the community, he has always striven to
further improve his knowledge and skills in human relationships and providing guidance for others.
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:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 7/8/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mayor Erin Mendenhall
SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation: Kristin Riker as Director of the Public Lands
Department
STAFF CONTACTS:
Lisa Shaffer,
lisa.shaffer@slcgov.com
Garrrett A. Danielson
garrett.danielson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Appointment
RECOMMENDATION: Following advice and consent, appoint: Kristin Riker, Director –
Public Lands Department
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the new classification of the Public Lands
Department, I am nominating Kristin Riker as the new Public Lands Department Director. Kristin
has held her current position as Salt Lake City Public Services Deputy Director for the past 3.5
years, and as Parks and Public Lands Program Director for 2.5 years, overseeing the Parks, Urban
Forestry, and Trails and Natural Lands Divisions, including the SLC Cemetery, Regional Athletic
Complex and Graffiti Removal programs. In January of 2021 she also began overseeing the Golf
Division. Prior to working for the City Kristin worked for Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation
Division for 20 years, nine of those years in policymaking management positions. Her budget
responsibilities have exceeded $39,000,000 annually.
Kristin Riker is an experienced local government professional with thirty-two years in the Parks and
Recreation profession. She has proven to be a strong leader capable of managing diverse staff in a
collegial manner, finding ways to mentor and grow her staff. She is a customer service oriented
7/14/2021
7/14/2021
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
leader working comfortably in a collaborative environment. Kristin is an excellent communicator
who is politically astute and has the demonstrated ability to work effectively with elected officials,
state and local agency representatives, other city departments, community stakeholders and the
general public. As the Deputy Director of Public Services she’s played an active role in representing
the Department and the City in the community working with City personnel, community councils,
community organizations and community leaders. She brings a big picture orientation to the
position with a focus on taking the Public Lands Department to a higher level of resident
satisfaction, transparency, and accountability.
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: 6/10/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 6/10/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 6/10/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Scott Lyttle as a member of the
Business Advisory 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
June 10, 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 Business Advisory Board:
Scott Lyttle – to be appointed for a term ending Monday, December 29, 2025, starting the date of
City Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
BEN KOLENDAR
DIRECTOR
TO: Mayor Mendenhall
FROM: Roberta Reichgelt, Salt Lake City Economic Development
RE: Business Advisory Board Appointment Recommendation
Dear Mayor Mendenhall:
The Department of Economic Development would like to recommend Scott Lyttle, owner of Tea Zaanti, for
a voting member position on the Business Advisory Board. Scott represents a voice for the small business
community located in Sugarhouse that we currently do not have representation on the BAB. Also, Scott is
involved in the revamp of the Sugar House Chamber as part of the Sugar House Community Council. He is
uniquely poised to represent the concerns of the Sugar House business community. This supports the
efforts of the Economic Development Department and Mayor’s 2021 goals to foster and cultivate strong
business and cultural districts throughout Salt Lake City.
He is willing to give extra time on the Board to attend City Council meetings and understand what issues
coming through the Council may impact the business community and will lend his voice in relevant public
meetings.
We strongly support Scott’s application to the Business Advisory Board. Please find enclosed his
application and resume. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Roberta Reichgelt
Local Business & Entrepreneurship Manager
Liaison to the Business Advisory Board
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
801-535-7694
Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com
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: 5/27/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 5/27/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 5/27/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation Housing Authority of Salt
Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Mike Pazzi as a member of the
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City.
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
May 27, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Folwer,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Housing Authority of Salt
Lake City:
Mike Pazzi– to be appointed for a term ending in four years starting the date of City Council advice
and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following:
§52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an
individual;
§52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
§52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
§52-4-205( l )(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including
any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the
appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from
completing the transaction on the best possible terms;
§52-4-205(l )(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right
or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: ((A) disclose the appraisal or estimated
value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction
on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale;
§52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
§52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code
§78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and
Public Meetings Act.
Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a)the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b)the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or
detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g):
A record was not made.
A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
City CouncilAmy Fowler 08/17/2021
4
4
44
Amy Fowler (Nov 11, 2021 14:28 MST)Nov 11, 2021
Cindy Trishman (Nov 11, 2021 15:08 MST)
Closed Session - Sworn Statement - August 17,
2021
Final Audit Report 2021-11-11
Created:2021-11-11
By:Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAkjxvemNxn9cYS_CW85HqIvPZKGodER3M
"Closed Session - Sworn Statement - August 17, 2021" History
Document created by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com)
2021-11-11 - 9:07:04 PM GMT
Document emailed to Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com) for signature
2021-11-11 - 9:09:16 PM GMT
Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
2021-11-11 - 9:28:05 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2021-11-11 - 9:28:17 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Document emailed to Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) for signature
2021-11-11 - 9:28:19 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2021-11-11 - 10:08:55 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2021-11-11 - 10:08:55 PM GMT